On Mar 19, 2008, at 11:30, Ray Krueger wrote:
I've attached a patch to
http://code.google.com/p/spymemcached/issues/detail?id=4
Is it really valuable to have per-method overrides of these timeouts?
I ask because we've added a couple of variations on some of these
methods now and java doesn't have a way to control that growth short
of adding an Options object of some sort. As it is, every slight
variation multiplies the number of methods.
If it would be sufficient to set a global option, that would be far
preferable.
[pasted that into the bug]
I'm clueless about git and did a very CVS style patch using "git diff
diff.txt", hopefully that's good enough.
If not please let me know :)
Sure, it's a fine way to do it. If you have a github account, you
can just click on the fork button, do normal code stuff, and then
click on the ``pull request'' button. Otherwise, you could just put
your tree on the internet somewhere and tell me to go get it.
Or you can just send a patch. :)
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Ray Krueger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Dustin Sallings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mar 18, 2008, at 21:29, Ray Krueger wrote:
An overload that allowed passing a timeout would probably suffice.
Or an asyncIncr that returned a future :)
Yeah, I don't like not having an asyncIncr, but it's way more
complicated than an async set so I haven't got to it.
Good point, though, I should have a bug filed for that just
as a
reminder, or perhaps and invitation for someone else to come around
and do it. :)
I fully intended to produce a patch for the overload. It was time for
bed when I sent that last message and I gotta figure out this whole
"git" thing still :P
--
Dustin Sallings
--
Dustin Sallings
