Or you could keep the original function behavior the same and expose this
as a separate function
def foo(...):
<your proposed run function>
def run(...):
return self.foo(...)[0]
where foo is a better function name - update? run_details?
run_with_changes? run_diff? _run? No opinion there.
-Reid
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Aaron Rosen <aro...@nicira.com> wrote:
> Right, this would break things for anyone checking the return value of
> idl.run(). The only alternative I see to that is if we pass an optional arg
> to run() (i.e: def run(self, return_changes=False)). Would you prefer this
> instead?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:45:35PM -0700, Aaron Rosen wrote:
>> > This patch changes what is being returned from Idl.run() to a tuple
>> > (changed, changes) so one can determine what changes have occurred to
>> > the database without having to read the entire table.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Rosen <aro...@nicira.com>
>>
>> It seems like a reasonable idea but I suspect it doesn't fix up all
>> the users. Also the patch is wordwrapped so I can't apply it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
