search

ssbc / ssb-config

standard configuration for ssb
MIT License
23 stars 18 forks source link

remove duplication #34

Closed dominictarr closed 4 years ago

dominictarr commented 5 years ago

@mixmix I want to suggest this change. when I merged your earlier PR, I changed something: https://github.com/ssbc/ssb-config/pull/31

I noticed that utils/get-net and utils/get-ws where nearly the same except that get-net iterated over all net protocols, but get-ws only took the first one. I figured surely this was an oversight - one of the problems we have with configuration is making sure things are handled in a consistent logical way, so the port that is being used for ws and net ought to be detected in the same way.

But, on the other hand, less abstract code is easier to read, because you just read it top to bottom...

But on the other hand, when things are the same, if they use the same code, then that strongly emphasizes that those things are the same. I think that makes it easier to maintain, because you can't change one thing without changing the other too. That way things intended to be the same change together.

What do you think?

mixmix commented 5 years ago

Two thoughts:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, 00:04 Dominic Tarr, notifications@github.com wrote:

@mixmix https://github.com/mixmix I want to suggest this change. when I merged your earlier PR, I changed something: #31 https://github.com/ssbc/ssb-config/pull/31

I noticed that utils/get-net and utils/get-ws where nearly the same except that get-net iterated over all net protocols, but get-ws only took the first one. I figured surely this was an oversight - one of the problems we have with configuration is making sure things are handled in a consistent logical way, so the port that is being used for ws and net ought to be detected in the same way.

But, on the other hand, less abstract code is easier to read, because you just read it top to bottom...

But on the other hand, when things are the same, if they use the same code, then that strongly emphasizes that those things are the same. I think that makes it easier to maintain, because you can't change one thing without changing the other too. That way things intended to be the same change together.

What do you think?

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

https://github.com/ssbc/ssb-config/pull/34 Commit Summary

  • remove duplication

File Changes

Patch Links:

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ssbc/ssb-config/pull/34, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACitnjKCLPNbsZyR0Fhpoto0mghJ8gVdks5vFE0hgaJpZM4aJlap .

dominictarr commented 5 years ago

@mixmix prior to this ssb-server worked without a default port set. because the port is defaulted to somewhere else.

I think the removing duplication aspect is more important: getting ws port should be done the same way as getting the net port, deduplicating code gaurantees that. duplicating code makes it easy to do it differently by accident

dominictarr commented 5 years ago

@mixmix local should be synonym for private. actually "local" is preferred by secret-stack https://github.com/ssbc/secret-stack/blob/master/core.js#L87

"private" is weird in that it means a local network... it might not be very private if it's it's say a cafe. 'public' is also unfortunate. but other code already expects "local"

stale[bot] commented 5 years ago

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

mixmix commented 4 years ago

@dominictarr is this still relevant? Also, seems like the definition of local / private have evolved? Or is there a mixup here?