I know and I was underlining that in the part of my mail you didn't quote. :p
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:55:41PM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > 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. > > My personal comment was only about the usefulness of the approach, not > the specific function in question. ;-) > > I don't have an opinion either way on this one, since I don't have > enough information to weigh in. > > > > > 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 >
