ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Thin Client lib: Python
Date Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:02:20 GMT
Hello!

I think that having both options is indeed preferable.

Regards,

-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev

2018-07-26 16:51 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Melnichuk <dmitry.melnichuk@nobitlost.com>
:

> Hi, Ilya!
>
> I considered this option. Indeed, the code would look cleaner if only one
> kind of identifier (preferably the human-readable name) was used. But there
> can be a hypothetical situation, when the user is left with hash code only.
> (For example, obtained from some other API.) It would be sad to have an
> identifier and not be able to use it.
>
> Now I really think about using hash codes and names interchangeably, so
> both
>
> ```
> cache_put(conn, 'my-cache', value=1, key='a')
> ```
>
> and
>
>
> ```
> cache_put(conn, my_hash_code, value=1, key='a')
> ```
>
> will be allowed.
>
> This will be a minor complication on my side, and quite reasonable one.
>
>
> On 07/26/2018 10:44 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Why not use cache name as string here, instead of cache_id()?
>>
>> cache_put(conn, 'my-cache', value=1, key='a')
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message