On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote:
> a model for extensions like that makes perfect sense. This model sound fine indeed. It makes no sense for httpClose however. Here's my concern: So when an early adapter is implemented and the rest of the market comes to their senses, how do we migrate without running into migration/upgrade problems? httpClose is a flag controlling connection pooling. I probably choose the wrong name. It is something that any implementation will support or should have supported already. Am I going to implement it as a key/value now to later implemented as I have done anyway? I don't like this idea. Don't get me wrong the pattern described by you guys is fine in some situations. I don't think it is applicable to this feature. regards, Daan
