Hi All,
In working with Udo, I moved the needed public API into a helper class. The
RegionFactory copy constructor still remains in RegionFactory but is protected.
The only way to use the method now is by creating a helper class that extends
RegionFactory.
Thanks for you all your help. I thin
A -1 vote on a code change should be framed as a “request for change”. Udo,
you’ve made it clear what you don’t want, but not what it would take to make PR
#4409 acceptable to you.
“Management V2 API” is unlikely to solve all problems in the near term, and
even to do so, it needs a sound under
Thanks, but it isn’t clear to me exactly what is at stake here. If this is a
“design” level proposal, perhaps it should go through the RFC process rather
than straight to a vote.
Either way, a short summary of the problem description, the possible paths
forward, and the advantages/disadvantage
It has been said I have a negative vote which is counter intuitive.
VOTE SUBJECT:
Should we continue migrating from AttributesFactory usage to RegionFactory
usage and merge the RegionFactory copy constructor.
+1 to Migrate to RegionFactory from AttributesFactory and merge the
RegionFactory co
Actually, I would say that it would not be necessary to have a copy constructor
if it were not for the way the tests are written that assume an
AttributesFactory. I think the discussion boils down to this…
Do we migrate to the RegionFactory API from AttributesFactory or do we wait for
the Manag
