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

["Stieber, Uwe" <Uwe.Stieber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

--
Uwe Stieber
Member of Technical Staff
Engineering - Wind River Systems - Austria
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Oberhuber
> Sent: Freitag, 20. Oktober 2006 02:16
> To: Target Management developer discussions
> Subject: [dsdp-tm-dev] Committers please vote: API changes on RSE?
> 
> 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
>