sudheerv commented on issue #6602:
URL: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/6602#issuecomment-616670924
> I don't think we should rename TSContScheduleOnPool() to be
TSContSchedule(). The function requires a pool and it makes more sense to have
the name TSContScheduleOnPool(). I have mix feeling on getting rid of
TSContSchedule()
Yeah, I tend to agree with Bryan - the naming of TSContScheduleOnPool() and
TSContschedule() are more readable and intuitive to relate to the intended
behavior. Even though TSContScheduleOnPool() can indirectly achieve the effect
of scheduling on the current thread, it feels a bit too contrived and perhaps a
bit needlessly complicated that it’d only do so when the affinity is not set.
As a API user, one would much rather have a simple and direct API that says
TSContSchedule() that defaults to the current thread. This is actually why I
didn’t like reusing TSContScheduleOnPool() naming if we wanted to kill one of
the API.
I dont particularly think having two separate (clearly named) API in this
case is confusing or overload. Rather, repurposing one API to support too many
combinations seems the more confusing option.
Long story short, while I’m not -1 to condense into a single API and would
be okay if everyone else feels that’s the right way to go, I’m definitely +1 on
leaving the (2 separate) API as they are in ATS9 (current master).
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
