On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:40, Russell Brown wrote:
>
> On 14 Sep 2011, at 12:37, Mathias Meyer wrote:
>
>> The short answer: yes, we can and we should. I had that on my radar for a
>> while too, because it felt un-Pythonic.
>>
>> As for deprecation, there's no specific rule for the Python client
On 14 Sep 2011, at 12:37, Mathias Meyer wrote:
> The short answer: yes, we can and we should. I had that on my radar for a
> while too, because it felt un-Pythonic.
>
> As for deprecation, there's no specific rule for the Python client yet. I'm
> happy to accept a patch for it for e.g. a vers
Riak 1.0 is coming soon.
Perhaps it makes sense for client point releases to coincide with server
point releases?
- Kev
c: +001 (650) 521-7791
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Mathias Meyer wrote:
> The short answer: yes, we can and we should. I had that on my radar for a
> while too, because
The short answer: yes, we can and we should. I had that on my radar for a while
too, because it felt un-Pythonic.
As for deprecation, there's no specific rule for the Python client yet. I'm
happy to accept a patch for it for e.g. a version of the client 1.4.0 with an
announcement that support
Hi all,
There are some non-Pythonic patterns in riak-python-client that should
be pretty easy to switch. Things like client.get_r() and
client.set_r() are kinda silly. Python long ago moved past the
getter/setter paradigm, with the notion of directly exposing instance
attributes. As Guido has said
