| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kartik Ohri <kartikohri13(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pljava-dev(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: the ScriptingMojo |
| Date: | 2020-08-22 20:45:13 |
| Message-ID: | 5F4183D9.10802@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pljava-dev |
On 08/22/20 16:33, Kartik Ohri wrote:
>>> names of their own for convenience, but other methods could just be
>>> accessible as utils.method() and I think that would solve this casting
>>> issue.
>>
> Regarding this, which methods should be bound by their own names ? Should I
> keep the current list of methods and just add an instance of the PGXSUtils
> to the script or should I remove the existing bindings ?
I have no strong opinion. I guess an advantage of keeping the existing
bindings is it reduces busy-work just making adjustments to the script
snippets because names of things changed. There could come a future
day after everything is working when a polishing pass could be done in
its own right and rethink some bindings or names looking at the whole
finished picture.
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2020-08-22 21:55:09 | Re: the ScriptingMojo |
| Previous Message | Kartik Ohri | 2020-08-22 20:33:48 | Re: the ScriptingMojo |