New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use a simple get/set accessor instead #149
Conversation
|
||
/** | ||
* Accessor to allow global access to the event loop. | ||
* Accessor to allow global access to the event loop |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Missing dot.
src/Loop.php
Outdated
|
||
/** | ||
* Retrieve the event loop driver that is in scope. | ||
* Retrieve the current event loop driver | ||
* | ||
* @return Driver |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Must be @return Driver|null
then.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
right, will fix.
@WyriHaximus There seems to be general approval to this PR… So, looking forward to the feedback from @clue and @cboden, then I'll merge this if we can agree on everything (also Driver). |
I have a busy week at work. I'll take a look as soon as I can which probably won't be until the weekend. |
A quick reminder @cboden :-) |
Closing, as project discontinued for now. |
As we ended up disagreeing on a common global accessor, I propose simplifying the whole accessor to just a get()+set() method pair.
This ensures that the loop will be interoperable at all (otherwise we'd end up having different loops active or worse things).
Now, every library can choose its own accessors as desired.
This should resolve the current point of contention.
Is this something we all can agree on?
\cc @kelunik @trowski @clue @WyriHaximus @martinschroeder @jsor @cboden @davidwdan @mbonneau @rdlowrey (please leave a thumbs up or down)
After that, I guess we can relatively quickly go to tagging v1 then as I haven't seen much objection on the Driver interface itself at all.