On Friday, 11 August 2017 13:12:32 BST Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Barry Scott <barry.sc...@forcepoint.com> > > wrote: > > I porting some code to latest twisted and I;m seeing the old code expects > > to > > call loseConenction with a reason. > > This code makes the mistake of treating a peculiarity of a particular > implementation of an interface as the interface itself. > > > But loseConnection in class ConnectionMixin does not have the parameter. > > Nor does the definition of loseConnection on the interface: > > http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/current/api/twisted.internet.interfaces.I > Transport.html#loseConnection > > Is this an oversight or deliberate? > > Code that goes beyond the guarantees of the interface is limiting itself to > working with a particular implementation. Sometimes it is less than clear > whether some behavior is intended to be guaranteed by the interface or not > - but in this case, it's pretty clear. loseConnection accepts no > arguments. Code that passes an argument may work with a specific > implementation but there's no guarantee it will work with other > implementations. And "other implementations" includes "future versions of > a specific implementation". > > So, it's deliberate. If you want to make the application code in question > more portable across implementations, it should stop passing an argument.
Thanks for the clarification. That begs the question of why any implementation of loseConnection has extended beyond the interface. Barry _______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com https://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
