search

async-interop / event-loop

An event loop interface for interoperability in PHP.
MIT License
169 stars 9 forks source link

watchers → enabled_watchers in getInfo #135

Closed kelunik closed 7 years ago

kelunik commented 7 years ago

This ensures it's clear which info is returned. I could have added another sentence to the docblock instead, but I think this makes it more obvious when consuming the code, too.

In general, I think that we should be careful with allowing extension here, as it limits us in adding more specified keys, such as "disabled_watchers".

kelunik commented 7 years ago

This is a PR for #131.

kelunik commented 7 years ago

@bwoebi: What do you think about limiting extension to allow for future extension in the specification?

bwoebi commented 7 years ago

Once we merge the separate virtual package for API, this isn't an issue. Yes, it will require a major version for the Driver API, but not for the loop implementations themselves. (unless the implementations define a key with the same name but different value; in that case semver following implementations have to release a major version - but that's then specific for the applications implementing that particular loop.)

I do not see that future extension is exceedingly limited here.

kelunik commented 7 years ago

But those implementations have to release a new major version. IMO they should add a separate method if they want to add more data, that will have a way lower chance of conflicting. Additionally, this would make the return of getInfo completely predictable.

bwoebi commented 7 years ago

Well, it's the choice of the implementations whether they choose to add more entries and incur the risk of having to sometime release a new major in the unlikely case of same key, different value.

The same way round you may argue that you could - without this restriction - rename keys in the Driver without requiring the implementations to release a new major (because they're allowed to retain the old key then).

kelunik commented 7 years ago

The same way round you may argue that you could - without this restriction - rename keys in the Driver without requiring the implementations to release a new major (because they're allowed to retain the old key then).

No, you can't. This would break the API. I'm specifically talking about not breaking the consumer API, but still being able to break the SPI.

kelunik commented 7 years ago

@trowski @rdlowrey @WyriHaximus How do you think about the extension?

kelunik commented 7 years ago

Could anyone merge this?