On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Rob Godfrey wrote:
On 14 December 2012 01:02, Weston M. Price wpr...@redhat.com wrote:
On things such as bitmaps vs. enums, I think that's just a language
convention thing... I don't see a huge need to make such things
identical.
Naming is something that should be
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Justin jr...@redhat.com wrote:
I've found the whole process of proposing API review dispiriting. You
can, of course, take it or leave it. I in no way wish to claim I have
better choices. I only wish to point out
Comments below.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Justin jr...@redhat.com wrote:
API usability is important and deserves attention.
Take, for instance, DeliveryState versus Disposition. That only serves to
confuse people. It's a difference that
believe all the work for this has been done. I'm marking it closed, please
reopen if there is more work.
Engine api naming proposal
--
Key: PROTON-26
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-26
Project
, but it's mostly gone
undiscussed. That's partly my fault. A post to the mailing list with
highlights suitable for inline comments is incoming.
Engine api naming proposal
--
Key: PROTON-26
URL: https://issues.apache.org
gone
undiscussed. That's partly my fault. A post to the mailing list with
highlights suitable for inline comments is incoming.
Engine api naming proposal
--
Key: PROTON-26
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-26
:
---
That's really not the case. Rejecting it is fine, but it's mostly gone
undiscussed. That's partly my fault. A post to the mailing list with
highlights suitable for inline comments is incoming.
Engine api naming proposal
On Dec 13, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Rob Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 December 2012 01:02, Weston M. Price wpr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Rob Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of comments...
On 13 December 2012 23:37, Justin
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-26?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Justin Ross updated PROTON-26:
--
Component/s: proton-j
Engine api naming proposal
--
Key
and recent changes factored
in.
Engine api naming proposal
--
Key: PROTON-26
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-26
Project: Qpid Proton
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: proton
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Justin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good
reason). The get/set_foo
pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong signal that if you
call set_foo with a given
value then get_foo
On 4 October 2012 23:56, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Justin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good
reason). The get/set_foo
pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong
to the network.
Engine api naming proposal
--
Key: PROTON-26
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-26
Project: Qpid Proton
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: proton-c
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good
reason). The get/set_foo
pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong signal that if you call
set_foo with a given
value then get_foo will return that same value until
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 08:35:00AM -0400, Justin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good
reason). The get/set_foo
pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong signal that if you
call set_foo with a
Justin Ross created PROTON-26:
-
Summary: Engine api naming proposal
Key: PROTON-26
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-26
Project: Qpid Proton
Issue Type: Improvement
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Ted Ross wrote:
I'm not crazy about the work-processing function names as they seem to
disregard the grammar. Should they not all be pn_connection_* functions?
I agree about this. I would
- Original Message -
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Ted Ross wrote:
I'm not crazy about the work-processing function names as they
seem to
disregard the grammar. Should they not all be pn_connection_*
18 matches
Mail list logo
