Interface Versions...
« previous entry | next entry »
Nov. 2nd, 2007 | 07:40 pm
Came to a realization tonight that an interface choice I made was probably a bad idea.
Why? I just looked at a new version of what I have been working on and realized that it would have been to encapsulate the return value.
So why is this a problem?
I am wondering if a 0.7 release that changes its principle interface is going to really annoy people... even when the library has not been declared stable yet....
I hate backwards compatibility...
Why? I just looked at a new version of what I have been working on and realized that it would have been to encapsulate the return value.
So why is this a problem?
I am wondering if a 0.7 release that changes its principle interface is going to really annoy people... even when the library has not been declared stable yet....
I hate backwards compatibility...
(no subject)
from:
dormando
date: Nov. 3rd, 2007 06:34 am (UTC)
Link
Reply | Thread
(no subject)
from:
krow
date: Nov. 3rd, 2007 07:21 am (UTC)
Link
Right now I am going to either change this:
char *memcached_fetch(memcached_st *ptr, char *key, size_t *key_length,
size_t *value_length, uint16_t *flags,
memcached_return *error);
To be
memcached_result *memcached_fetch(memcached_st *, memcached_result *res);
Or come up with a a new memcached_fetch_result()
This was inspired because of the change in next version of memcached for the cas parameter. A result object would let me hide any number of changes behind a structure with fetch methods.
I've got several users already... and while I have not said "this is stable" I don't like to change code willy nilly on people.
Reply | Parent | Thread