Hmm ts_util is a utility currently only used by txn_box. It uses libswoc, as do other parts of our code.
We have already decided to bring ts_util into our repo. We already have to maintain it. It's a question of whether we want to get more use out of it. If we don't think it's of significant value to use C++ rather than C, maybe we should just all switch to nginx? On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:30 PM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Apr 18, 2024, at 11:20 AM, Masakazu Kitajo <mas...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Like I said above, I think we should keep TS API minimal, because we > cannot > > change TS API casually. Once we add something, it's difficult to change > or > > remove it. I don't want to have much code with such constraints just for > > convenience. That is why I've been very cautious about this (and any API > > additions) and I call using libswoc stuff a huge commitment. > > > > I think the best argument I’ve heard against this is to not have public > APIs that exposes libswoc APIs. Since we (hopefully) will move away from > much of libswoc internally over time (e.g. std::fmt), exposing such > dependencies in public API would make that transition difficult. > > Can we make these additions such that any libswoc dependency is hidden > from the public API? Is that maybe part of the cleanup we’d do before this > move ? > > — Leif > >
