Hi, Aleksey!
On Dec 22, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> > >
> > > Particularly to this function I don't like its name, semantics and
> > > signature.
> >
> > As far as the service is concerned, "don't like" is too weak an
> > argument, changing a service comes with a compatibility cost.
>
> Of course, if there is compatibility issue. That's not the case for
> our in-tree plugins, I guess?
You cannot base your decision on the belief that all plugins are
in-tree. This API was created open for third-party plugins to use.
So, we have to assume that third party plugins exist
(and they do exist, check github, sourceforce, and jira).
My concern is mostly about our plugins. Let the third-party plugins use that API, but our plugins are not restricted to it?
> > > Now, to the THD::make_clex_string() and THD::make_lex_string().
> > > These methods should not be in THD at all. Its monolithic design
> > > with million of different methods looks to me as a huge mess
> > > accumulated across long time. There was no need to create proxies
> > > when there would not be such a large class in the first place.
> >
> > They could be methods of a MEM_ROOT. One shouldn't need a complete
> > THD to allocate memory from a memroot.
>
> I believe, that's not much better than THD method. THD, MEM_ROOT are
> generic classes, they should know nothing about classes they provide
> services for.
okay
Regards,
Sergei
VP of MariaDB Server Engineering
and security@mariadb.org