On May 27, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Kevin Clark wrote:
Hi Kevin.
As someone who's done large rewrites of the ruby libs a couple times
(what's there still mostly isn't my code), I've got to strongly push
that you don't rewrite this from scratch. My github mirror isn't up to
date, but you should look at the ruby_styling branch here:
http://github.com/kevinclark/thrift/commits/ruby_styling
In it, I'm doing most of what you've described in a backwards
compatible way. Namespaces are being added in, proper tests are being
written, the camel case is being pulled out, but all if it is
happening in a way that won't break existing code.
ruby_styling or ruby_lib_namespacing? The latter appears to be ahead
of the former by a few commits.
I know David doesn't care about breaking the Ruby bindings, but I do.
We have lots of infrastructure running on top of it, and while I do
_desperately_ want this code to feel like a Ruby library (I agree it
does not), I'm not willing to break things in the process. I think we
can have the best of both worlds.
Please _do_ submit tests. Please _do_ submit good rdoc. Please _do_
feel free to toss patches onto JIRA improving the state of the Ruby
bindings, but I'm unlikely to support a rewrite from scratch. There's
too many people running this code to simply ignore them. This _can_ be
done in a backwards compatible way, as is being done in the
ruby_styling branch.
Ok, I will try to do it this way. But it seems that to not break
anything, you can't change any API. How are you defining not breaking
anything?
-Kevin
--
Kevin Ballard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
