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

Refactor PutFile streaming to not use associated objects #223

Closed
joeljfischer opened this issue Jun 3, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Refactor PutFile streaming to not use associated objects #223

joeljfischer opened this issue Jun 3, 2015 · 5 comments
Labels
best practice Not a defect but something that should be improved anyway bug A defect in the library
Milestone

Comments

@joeljfischer
Copy link
Contributor

Associated objects should only be used as a last resort, when modifying a system framework with new properties is really the only option. With PutFile streaming I don't believe we're at that point, this code could be refactored to be cleaner and less fragile. I have also seen situations where this code does not seem to work at all, and an alternate method to PutFile had to be used.

@joeljfischer joeljfischer added bug A defect in the library best practice Not a defect but something that should be improved anyway labels Jun 3, 2015
@joeljfischer joeljfischer added this to the 4.1.0 milestone Jun 3, 2015
@hugh22
Copy link
Contributor

hugh22 commented Jun 3, 2015

I have seen many situations where it works fine every time actually and is not fragile at all. But w/e.

@joeljfischer
Copy link
Contributor Author

I haven't tested extensively, so I would need to verify for myself. I've only heard it from one third-party I worked with. Generally I try to avoid runtime manipulations, but if it works fine then it would be low on the priority list.

@adein
Copy link

adein commented Aug 4, 2015

@joeljfischer Do we want to use this issue for the putfile streaming changes that are incoming (alignment with Android methodology), or create a new one?

@joeljfischer
Copy link
Contributor Author

I would just create a new one that's specific to the changes requested, and reference this issue. If the PR fixes both issues then it would just mark that it fixes both.

@joeljfischer
Copy link
Contributor Author

This can be closed once #298 ships

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
best practice Not a defect but something that should be improved anyway bug A defect in the library
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants