> On Apr 20, 2018, at 8:28 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> A broader issue is that Alan had the impression there was a clear
> consensus to do this, and so proceeded to do a lot of work. We should
> understand how that happened.
Agreed, it’s very unfortunate, and I agree that we should focus this discussion
on making sure we are more in sync with what we want and expect.
FWIW, I was not aware that the intent was to replace printf when this started.
— Leif
>
> Walt
>
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Traveling, so keeping this short for now...
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2018, at 10:18 AM, Jason Kenny <jke...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is the concern bufferwritter or the use fo bufferwritter in TSDebug. I
>>> agree the "extra" value is small for TSDebug. I feel the use of
>>> bufferwritter is great within our code base.
>>
>>
>> Many of us have spent significant amounts of time dealing with how to deal
>> with he integration of this library on various platforms. I have yet to see
>> the benefits here outweigh the work efforts. I have little confidence that
>> the code would not continue to be a PITA when dealing with cross platforms /
>> compilers. It’s just really pushing the envelope on how compilers implement
>> these some of these features.
>>
>> The other concern I have is that we might be building a library that is to
>> difficult to use,that people wont bother and rather just printf things. I
>> know you fixed the performance issues that were noticeable before, but this
>> is still a complex piece of code that IMO has yet to show value.
>>
>> Yes, pretty harsh, and we should have had this discussion long ago. I also
>> know that some of this work was done to deal with string expansion in
>> header_rewrite; but this is definitely not what I had in mind at the time. I
>> wanted to just to be able to efficiently expand the %{} conditions in
>> strings, not implement printf as it is.
>>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> — Leif
>>>
>>> -Jason
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Replacing Debug()/TSDebug() with BufferWriter/bwformat has little
>>>> benefit. Also, I don’t think adding another formatting interface for
>>>> strings is something we want to maintain or use.
>>>>
>>>> The main downside, with snprintf(), I see reading the examples is having
>>>> to keep track of the length and position in the buffer if you are calling
>>>> snprintf() multiple times. This can be handled writing a simple wrapper
>>>> around snprintf(), which I have done before in about 20 lines of code. If
>>>> we want to expose a wrapper around snprintf(), I would be in favor of that.
>>>>
>>>> -Bryan
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Alan Carroll
>>>>> <solidwallofc...@oath.com.INVALID>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have several pull requests up currently involving updates to output
>>>>> formatting for BufferWriter. I was asked to provide more detail on the
>>>>> point of these pulls requests. Anyone who is interested can read this
>>>>> document - https://solidwallofcode.github.io/buffer-writer.en.html for
>>>> that
>>>>> detail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
