Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] Committers please vote: API changes on RSE?

[David Dykstal <dykstal@xxxxxxx>]

+1, for the same reasons. Better pre 1.0 than later.
---------------------------
Dave Dykstal
dykstal@xxxxxxx


On Oct 19, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Martin Oberhuber wrote:

> Dear committers,
>
> Dave McKnight has proposed an API change to the  
> IRemoteFileSubSystem and IRemoteProcessSubSystem in order to add  
> progress monitors to some method calls, such that there is a chance  
> to cancel long running operations.
>
> My personal take is, that although its already very late in the  
> game I'd like to accept such API changes because it appears that
> 1. We dont have many clients on openRSE yet. At least none that I'd  
> know of.
> 2. Those API changes appear simple and straightforward.
> 3. API changes will become much more difficult than now as soon as  
> we have 1.0 released, so better do it now than in the future.
> 4. The API changes will enable our users to write interruptable  
> services, i.e. allow something not possible today. So even if our  
> own services are not all interruptable yet, it's important to open  
> up the API for allowing interruptable services in the future.
>
> Considering all this, I'm voting +1.
> Committers please cast your votes.
>
> Thanks
> Martin
>
> David McKnight schrieb:
>
> > 1) I did consider putting this to a vote but then thought it was  
> > too trivial a change for that.   It was really something that  
> > should have been done from the start but it was an oversight.  At  
> > this point I haven't committed anything since I wanted to see the  
> > reaction to my email and I guess that was a good thing.
> >
> > 2) I was wondering about the order of arguments too - I suppose  
> > the last argument is consistent with RSE, although, I'm not sure  
> > how consistent it is with other things.  I guess the natural thing  
> > would be to place it at the end.  I would like to make the  
> > corresponding changes to the list*() APIs for  
> > IRemoteProcessSubSystem as well.  I'm still not sure whether we  
> > should have monitors for all the methods right now without taking  
> > a closer look at their usages.   I'm wondering if maybe we ought  
> > to phase this in two parts: first to deal with queries (the most  
> > obvious case) and second phase to deal with the other subsystem  
> > calls.  Any thoughts on that?
> > Before getting into the details, I suppose we may as well have a  
> > vote on whether or not we should make any API changes at this point.
> >
> > ____________________________________
> > David McKnight    Phone:   905-413-3902 , T/L:  969-3902
> > Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Mail:       D1/140/8200/TOR
>
> --
>
> Martin Oberhuber
> Wind River Systems, Inc.
> Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
> http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
>
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-tm-dev mailing list
> dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-tm-dev