Skip to content
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

Factor out start-a-libp2p-daemon! #21

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AlexKnauth
Copy link
Contributor

@AlexKnauth AlexKnauth commented Mar 10, 2022

  • start-libp2p-daemon! for "a" daemon
  • stop-libp2p-daemon! for "a" daemon
  • start-the-libp2p-daemon! for "the" daemon in current-libp2p-daemon
  • stop-the-libp2p-daemon! for "the" daemon in current-libp2p-daemon

See also #20

to avoid current-libp2p-daemon problems
Copy link
Contributor

@bennewhall bennewhall left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Copy link
Collaborator

@fare fare left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't like your proposed API changes as is. Or at least, you'll have to justify them.

stop-libp2p-daemon!
stop-the-libp2p-daemon!
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is it start-a- and stop-the- ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@AlexKnauth AlexKnauth Mar 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If backwards compatibility is a concern,
Current behavior has:

  • start-libp2p-daemon! for "the" daemon in current-libp2p-daemon
  • stop-libp2p-daemon! for "a" daemon, where current-libp2p-daemon doesn't matter

A better design would have:

  • start-libp2p-daemon! for "a" daemon
  • stop-libp2p-daemon! for "a" daemon
  • start-the-libp2p-daemon! for "the" daemon in current-libp2p-daemon
  • stop-the-libp2p-daemon! for "the" daemon in current-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 code
  • start-libp2p-daemon! for "the" daemon as dictated by existing code
  • stop-the-libp2p-daemon! for "the" daemon in current-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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay, I've changed the convention to make it more consistent with only "the" and no "a", and also added some documentation.

@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
(def current-libp2p-daemon
(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.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe that should be renamed ensure-libp2p-daemon ?
Or, if we want backward-compatibility, a force: or new: boolean flag?

@@ -45,5 +58,9 @@
(delete-file path))
status))))

(def (stop-the-libp2p-daemon!)
(stop-libp2p-daemon!)
(current-libp2p-daemon #f))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't stop-libp2p-daemon! always call (current-libp2p-daemon #f) ? And then this function becomes unnecessary?

@vyzo
Copy link
Owner

vyzo commented Mar 11, 2022

Honestly, i am fine either way -- i'll let @fare drive this.

@AlexKnauth
Copy link
Contributor Author

Okay, I think I'll rename them to fit this convention:

  • start-libp2p-daemon! for "a" daemon
  • stop-libp2p-daemon! for "a" daemon
  • start-the-libp2p-daemon! for "the" daemon in current-libp2p-daemon
  • stop-the-libp2p-daemon! for "the" daemon in current-libp2p-daemon

convention: names with "the" libp2p-daemon convention for functions that deal with current-libp2p-daemon
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants