Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I am going to go through the client code and switch the usages to the base class (which declares the methods being used) and then change the hierarchy here as proposed.
Hi Jeremy,
I would vote -1 on the restructuring on the basis that I think that we should slow down here. We have people active in this project from around the world who deserve the opportunity to contribute their thoughts and I still see active discussion around this issue. I personally have concerns about embedded/client compatibility and in general would like to know what your thoughts are on embedded/client compatibility in your restructuring of the client.
We do not need to discuss this to death before implementing anything. Going through this we are flushing out several issues which may not have been obvious just from code inspection.
The changes here are incremental and can be rolled back at any time.
I know that this time offers us a unique opportunity to change the behaviour of client, but I want to establish that the goals in doing so are to make it more compatible with the embedded driver. I think that is very important.
As I commented to Satheesh, I agree. There are differences there that will addressed incrementally as we go through this process.
-- Jeremy
