Re: [PATCH] StoreID latest implementation in sync with rev 12552. stage 2-3 from 3.

On 1/11/2013 5:43 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
> Sure, but you coded in that patch a whole bunch of fetch rules which all
> said: if a request was present, use its storeId, if none was present
> use the alternative variable storeId.
>
> All I was asking for was to take that piece of logic decision which was
> repeated in a handful of places (with slightly different boolean tests)
> and make a inline accessor function which anybody can call without
> needing to reasearch the diferentce between the HttpReqeust:storeId and
> the alternative one, or to re-code the test logic themselves. We should
> be able to just call storeId() accessor from the state object and get
> whatever the current storeId is. No complex conditionals.
>
> Amos

Got you now.

I am a bit busy right now and I don't even have enough time to fix the
minor issues.
The different Boolean tests was a mistake and I unified them all into
one test.

I do understand what you are saying about using a simple accessor.
It will just take more time for me.

I will try to sit on it again this week and I will reconsider all the
mentioned issues in the thread.
What I didn't understood is that "state object" which I am not sure what
you meant(pointer to the code?). Sorry.

I saw your inline example which is perfect.

I will get into the irc dev channel this week while working on the code.

Thanks again,
Eliezer
Received on Fri Jan 11 2013 - 12:34:44 MST