Can you please leave this list sebb? You opinion is unwelcome!
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:05 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 February 2014 13:20, David Kemp <drk...@google.com> wrote: >> -1 to merging reads. That just sounds like a horrible thing to debug. > > Seems to me that developers using the plugin will have to implement > something similar in order to make it easier for their users. > > Would it not be better to spend the time getting it right once, for > the benfit of all developers, rather than hoping they each get it > right? > > I don't know what is involved here, so this is theoretical. > But I believe that compatibility should only be broken if necessary. > Also that fixing a problem at source is usually a lot cheaper than > requiring downstream developers/users to do so. > There are lots more of them, so any extra effort they have to expend > is multiplied many times. > In other words, the cost-benefit should not just look at the immediate > cost to the project. > >> +1 to 'go big or go home'. Break it now. Break it obviously. > > But I agree that breakage - if decided on - should be obvious. > >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Josh Soref <jso...@blackberry.com> wrote: >> >>> Is it impossible to have reads merged from both locations, but writes go >>> to the new location, and when a write completes in the new location, delete >>> the old one?
