5 Feb
2013
5 Feb
'13
2:25 p.m.
Am Dienstag, 5. Februar 2013, 12:52:19 schrieb Charles Chance:
We are working on a memcached module which uses the
libmemcached library, as
opposed to the (no longer under active development) libmemcache that the
existing module depends on.
Am I correct in thinking that in this instance, it would be better to create
a brand new module (with a different name) rather than modify the existing
one? In addition to changing the dependency, we will also be exporting new
commands and potentially changing the format of the exported PVs.
Hello Charles,
as the original author of the module I'd think that changing or replacing the
existing module would be the way to go. So far I'd not recieved that much of
bug reports against the existing module. And as Alex Balashov also mentioned
recently, there are some other issues with the current library.
If existing users need to stay with the old module, its available in the git
and the existing releases, for the new release we should go with a module
which supports the newer library.
It would be nice if you could stay with the existing PV API, which I modelled
somehow after the htable module. If you need to change something, just
announce it on the devel list and ask for feedback.
Thanks and regards,
Henning Westerholt
6 Feb
6 Feb
3:46 p.m.
New subject: [SR-Users] Update existing module or create new?
Hi Devs,
On 05/02/2013 12:25, Henning Westerholt wrote:
Am Dienstag, 5. Februar 2013, 12:52:19 schrieb Charles
Chance:
Very happy to stay with existing PVs if possible. The only thing I'd
like to see different is to set value and expiry at the same time,
instead of having to set value, then alter expiration. This has to be
better than setting a value with some default expiry, getting that same
value back again, then re-setting the value once more with a different
expiry?
Could this be implemented at PV level? Something like $mct(key:expiry) =
value? And if expiry is omitted, we use default.
Regards,
Charles
--
www.sipcentric.com <http://www.sipcentric.com/>
Follow us on twitter @sipcentric <http://twitter.com/sipcentric>
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592.
Registered office: Unit 10 iBIC, Birmingham Science Park, Holt Court
South, Birmingham B7 4EJ.
We are working on a memcached module which uses
the libmemcached library, as
opposed to the (no longer under active development) libmemcache that the
existing module depends on.
Am I correct in thinking that in this instance, it would be better to create
a brand new module (with a different name) rather than modify the existing
one? In addition to changing the dependency, we will also be exporting new
commands and potentially changing the format of the exported PVs.
Hello Charles,
as the original author of the module I'd think that changing or replacing the
existing module would be the way to go. So far I'd not recieved that much of
bug reports against the existing module. And as Alex Balashov also mentioned
recently, there are some other issues with the current library.
If existing users need to stay with the old module, its available in the git
and the existing releases, for the new release we should go with a module
which supports the newer library.
It would be nice if you could stay with the existing PV API, which I modelled
somehow after the htable module. If you need to change something, just
announce it on the devel list and ask for feedback.
Thanks and regards,
Henning Westerholt
4337
days inactive
4338
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Charles Chance -
Henning Westerholt