[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Not sure I agree. I like Shawn's proposal. Why do API consumers need > to know what's going on under the covers? Isn't that the point of the > API to begin with? > > -j > > As John points out, different consumers of the API may desire different tradeoffs. Yes, if we could be blindingly fast and use no memory, that would be ideal. I saw the "use_cache" flag as the beginning of a low memory mode. Or, we might discover that the right way to think about these things is a persistent/long-running vs one-off/short-running flag. If we can't be perfect for everyone, I'd rather give API consumers switches to flick rather than say "oh well, too bad for you." If you agree on that, then, essentially, I think what we're quibbling about is whether "use_cache" should be named something else.
In short, I think "use_cache" starts to lay the track for later work we may need to do anyway. The other change, 'if name == "pkg" ', is clearly only a stopgap measure. It doesn't provide other (hypothetical) consumers of the API the ability to choose whether they use the cache or not (run in low mem mode or not) (declare they're long running processes or not). Brock [snip] _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
