Factor out start-a-libp2p-daemon!#21
Conversation
to avoid current-libp2p-daemon problems
bennewhall
left a comment
bennewhall
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If backwards compatibility is not an issue, I am personally in favor of removing current-libp2p-daemon entirely. I personally have not found much use for it in my own code since start-libp2p-daemon! returns a daemon. As far as the code goes LGTM
fare
left a comment
fare
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't like your proposed API changes as is. Or at least, you'll have to justify them.
| start-libp2p-daemon! | ||
| start-a-libp2p-daemon! | ||
| stop-libp2p-daemon! | ||
| stop-the-libp2p-daemon! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is it start-a- and stop-the- ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If backwards compatibility is a concern,
Current behavior has:
start-libp2p-daemon!for "the" daemon incurrent-libp2p-daemonstop-libp2p-daemon!for "a" daemon, wherecurrent-libp2p-daemondoesn't matter
A better design would have:
start-libp2p-daemon!for "a" daemonstop-libp2p-daemon!for "a" daemonstart-the-libp2p-daemon!for "the" daemon incurrent-libp2p-daemonstop-the-libp2p-daemon!for "the" daemon incurrent-libp2p-daemon
The closest thing I could think of to that while maintaining backwards compatibility has:
start-a-libp2p-daemon!for "a daemon"stop-libp2p-daemon!for "a" daemon as dictated by existing codestart-libp2p-daemon!for "the" daemon as dictated by existing codestop-the-libp2p-daemon!for "the" daemon incurrent-libp2p-daemon
If backwards compatibility is not a concern, I could make it more consistent with only "the" and no "a", but I won't do that unless @vyzo says that's what he wants.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, I've changed the convention to make it more consistent with only "the" and no "a", and also added some documentation.
| (make-parameter #f)) | ||
|
|
||
| ;; Starts a new libp2p-daemon only if there is no existing current-libp2p-daemon, | ||
| ;; and if so sets the current-libp2p-daemon to the new one. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe that should be renamed ensure-libp2p-daemon ?
Or, if we want backward-compatibility, a force: or new: boolean flag?
|
|
||
| (def (stop-the-libp2p-daemon!) | ||
| (stop-libp2p-daemon!) | ||
| (current-libp2p-daemon #f)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't stop-libp2p-daemon! always call (current-libp2p-daemon #f) ? And then this function becomes unnecessary?
|
Honestly, i am fine either way -- i'll let @fare drive this. |
|
Okay, I think I'll rename them to fit this convention:
|
convention: names with "the" libp2p-daemon convention for functions that deal with current-libp2p-daemon
4 participants
start-libp2p-daemon!for "a" daemonstop-libp2p-daemon!for "a" daemonstart-the-libp2p-daemon!for "the" daemon incurrent-libp2p-daemonstop-the-libp2p-daemon!for "the" daemon incurrent-libp2p-daemonSee also #20