On 02/18/2015 02:28 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote:
To amplify a little, the point was that the two things currently in the
utils module are ways of adapting the reactive, non-blocking, event-driven
style to some other style (messenger is in my view a similar sort of
thing). Though it is certainly more narrow, I think its also more helpful.
The other aspect to these is that they aren't yet considered as
fully-baked as the reactive core. I certainly don't object to them being in
an extras namespace to denote that, until we are more comfortable we have
the interfaces right. You could also however indicate that through
documentation or some 'experimental' annotation.
I agree we don't necessarily need to signal bakedness in the package name,
I think it's good to think of it as an orthogonal dimension. I'm not quite
sure I follow the reasoning for proton.adapters though. That sounds to me
like somewhere we'd put stuff for integrations, e.g. maybe the tornado
stuff.
I see these things as providing an alternative API on top of the
reactive style API. Which to me is what an adapter does.
To me the tornado integration is more of a plugin.
I'm not adamant about the 'adapters' name though, just saying its clear
to me(!). I really don't like 'contrib' though. For one thing it makes
no logical sense to me. How are things more 'contributed' than anything
else? I think 'extras' is actually a clearer way to describe the
layering you mention. I don't mind that, though it is a little vague. (I
think an adapter is also clearly layered).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
