I really like where the enhancements are headed. I feel they offer the syntax that some folks wanted, with the safety and validation of the initial implementation. Best of both worlds.
On 20/10/16 13:09, Tim Penhey wrote: > Hi folks, > > https://github.com/juju/retry/pull/5/files > > As often is the case, the pure solution is not always the best. What seemed > initially like the best approach didn't end up that way. > > Both Katherine and Roger had other retry proposals that got me thinking about > changes to the juju/retry package. The stale-mate from the tech board made me > want to try another approach that I thought about while walking the dog today. > > I wanted the security and fall-back of validation of the various looping > attributes, while making the call site much more obvious. > The pull request has the result of this attempt. > > It is by no means perfect, but an improvement I think. I was able to trivially > reimplement retry.Call with the retry.Loop concept with no test changes. > > The tests are probably the best way to look at the usage. > > Tim > -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
