Loop::info

[kelunik]

This method currently doesn't match the other naming schemes. Should we rename it to getInfo? Any other name suggestions?

[bwoebi]

I see info() as an abbreviation of inform() … I do not see how getInfo() is more expressive/better conveying intent here.

[kelunik]

Maybe we should find a entirely new name like getWatcherInfo or getWatcherStats, because that's what it actually returns.

[bwoebi]

The minimum info is only about watchers, yes. But implementations may want to add more loop specific info.

Apart from that getWatcher*() makes me expect the first parameter to be a watcher Id and get stats/info on that specific watcher.

[kelunik]

Maybe we should drop that minimum, as anything other isn't guaranteed to be there anyway. If you have to check for a specific implementation anyway if you want to use that data, you can call another specific method, too.

[bwoebi]

I see no explicit advantage of dropping that minimum.

[kelunik]

It doesn't encourage adding "unrelated" entries.

[bwoebi]

And that's an issue because…?

[kelunik]

Depends what you do with the data. If you use code like the following for submitting metrics, the code might break if other values are provided with a different structure.

foreach (Loop::info() as $type => $values) {
    foreach ($values as $prop => $count) {
        $metrics->count("{$type}.{$prop}", $count);
    }
}

[kelunik]

@trowski @joelwurtz What are your opinions on that? You put a reaction on the OP, but didn't comment here.

[trowski]

@kelunik I'd rather see the name be getInfo() purely for consistency. It might be nice to add __debugInfo() to the interface as an alias to this method.

[bwoebi]

@trowski I wouldn't recommend adding __debugInfo() to the interface (as in you shouldn't make magic funcs part of the interface). We may recommend it, but I wouldn't force it.

[trowski]

Ok, that's reasonable, was just a random thought. :smile:

[kelunik]

@bwoebi You're the only one against, still have strong feelings against getInfo?

@trowski @WyriHaximus What do you think about removing the minimum and requiring those exact values?

[bwoebi]

Well, what shall I say… it's just a name. Names are subjective by definition. If I'm outnumbered here, then go with it.

I have stronger feelings about the minimum. I still see no issue with having it. It just is an artificial unnecessary limit.

[kelunik]

@bwoebi As I said in https://github.com/async-interop/event-loop/issues/102#issuecomment-258705894, it depends on how you consume those values.

[bwoebi]

That's why you should be aware of that and code appropriately.

[WyriHaximus]

@kelunik honestly I like the minimum as it gives flexibility for drivers to expose more values, and feel rather strongly about it. What we could do is require any additional values to be structured the same way as the minimum, for example:

'foo' => [
    'bar' => 'bier',
],