Brock Pytlik wrote: > [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).
...and I'm all for that. I'd just rather we have a chance to fully discuss and design that and then change the api instead of adding what will likely be quickly replaced with something else. That's my only problem with going the "use_cache" route at the moment. -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
