Hey Ivan, On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: > On 6 April 2015 at 20:49, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >> On 6 April 2015 at 19:02, Lieven Govaerts <l...@mobsol.be> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: serf-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:serf-...@googlegroups.com] On >>>>> Behalf Of s...@googlecode.com >>>>> Sent: maandag 6 april 2015 11:25 >>>>> To: serf-...@googlegroups.com >>>>> Subject: [serf-dev] [serf] r2489 committed - In preparation of serf 1.4.0, >>>>> remove the get_remaining function from t... >>>>> >>>>> Revision: 2489 >>>>> Author: lieven.govaerts >>>>> Date: Mon Apr 6 09:24:18 2015 UTC >>>>> Log: In preparation of serf 1.4.0, remove the get_remaining function >>>>> from the >>>>> bucket API. >>>>> >>>>> This reverts most of r2008, r2009, r2010 and r2198. From r2008 I kept the >>>>> read_bucket_v2 function, which is needed for set_config. >>>> >>>> If we still keep the read_bucket_v2 feature, what is the reason for just >>>> removing get_remaining? >>>> >>> >>> I'm fixing all TODO's as discussed in the summer last year. >>> Get_remaining isn't finished yet and not used. So instead of waiting >>> until someone uses it, I'm removing it now so we can get 1.4 branched. >>> >>> We can still revert this revision after 1.4.x is branched though. In >>> fact, we can release 1.5.x with just this if an application wants to >>> make use of the (finalized) get_remaining feature. >>> >> What problem do we have with get_remaining() feature except >> read_bucket_v2() linkage problems? get_remaining() feature is not used >> in Subversion for only one reason: serf-trunk has version 2.0.0 so >> it's not possible to add version detection code.
Huh? We always used a check on the next version of serf to check for trunk code, why is that not possible anymore? It's 2 years after you added the get_remaining API, and it's still not used in Subversion. >> >> > Hi Lieven, > > I still don't understand your arguments on reverting get_remaining() > feature. Why you consider get_remaining() as isn't finished? I consider it as not finished because many bucket types don't have a get_remaining implementation, not even a default function, just NULL. If you use such a bucket in an aggregate bucket, you'll get a quite nasty crash. > The read_bucket_v2() linking problem also apply to your serf_config_t > feature, but we didn't reverted it from trunk. > > Also adding this feature latter will require read_bucket_v3() which > increase the mess. > > -- > Ivan Zhakov My guess was then, and still is, that this feature can wait a release. I'm not against the feature, I'm against adding features that will not be used. Lieven
