> On Oct 13, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Tom Prince <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This applies more generally; no need for any weird hacks. Any 'new' plugin
> > could just opt in to a different syntax; we can just look up until the
> > first ':'; we just need to define a new interface for a new syntax.
>
> I don't think that this provides a good user experience.
>
> 1) There are existing endpoints that want nestable endpoints, so either
> a) They don't change, somewhat defeating the purpose of having a new
> syntax (or cluttering the endpoint namespace with less than useful endpoints).
We already have this problem, and we will need to do a doc cleanup /
consolidation / deprecation pass soon. (see: tcp, tcp6, host, ssl, tls...)
> b) They change incompatibility, defeating the purpose of trying to
> maintain backwards compatability.
As you've noticed, we may have several potential "outs" to have
practically-compatible parsing syntaxes; the real problem is the internal
factoring of the parsing APIs rather than the syntax.
> 2) As user, I need to learn which endpoints support the new syntax, thus
> potentially needing to know both methods of quoting and switch between them
> as appropriate.
As a user you're going to need to read the parameter documentation anyway;
learning about new syntax is not much different than learning about a new
parameter. And you may not realize there _is_ a syntax; most configuration of
this type is just copying and pasting a reasonable-looking example. Not to say
that we should be spuriously incompatible for those who have learned the rules,
but the only rule to learn at this point is ": separates arguments, \ escapes
:". We could add one more rule without unduly stressing the cognitive burden
of the endpoint system.
> There are a couple of possible ways around this, without requiring a weird
> hack.
> - I wonder how many endpoints strings have ever been written whose value
> starts with any of `[` `(` or `{`? I suspect that the number might in fact be
> 0. In which case, although the change is technically incompatible, in
> practice it wouldn't be.
> - Alternatively, we could deprecate an unquoted [, (, { at the beginning of a
> value, and then after a suitable deprecation period (perhaps additionally a
> release where it is just an error), we could repurpose one of them to act as
> quoting (leaving the other two for future extensiblity).
I suspect that this would be overkill here; we also have other options, like
'(: :)', which would be totally compatible (there are no _arguments_ anywhere
presently named "(").
-g
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
[email protected]
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
