I am also a bit concerned by issues that might arise from a user thinking that this is always accurate, rather than hints. Aaron, I think you had said something regarding this when we chatted off-list, but I don't recall the details.
-Reid On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Reid Price <rpr...@nicira.com> wrote: > 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
