From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sqlite3 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:54:17 +0200 Message-ID: <83sfuvjcmu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87tufmjyai.fsf@gnus.org> <87lf0nr2b4.fsf@gnus.org> <87fsqvp5ae.fsf@gnus.org> <432990EE-81AA-4312-8C94-6E87F7925647@mit.edu> <877dc7p50e.fsf@gnus.org> <83y24njfzy.fsf@gnu.org> <13641654-02AD-48D0-B5CD-EB390CE3594E@mit.edu> <83v8zrjdsh.fsf@gnu.org> <3A1A7C04-EF3C-44D9-B777-7F91E2329C15@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36216"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Qiantan Hong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 14 18:55:24 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mxC1L-0009At-QV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 18:55:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58518 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mxC1K-0003jx-Js for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:55:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34280) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mxC0K-0002w3-60 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:54:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=48218 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mxC0J-0000gO-L4; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:54:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=1aESs//jNqwi5+VG6KIbU/Hw5dt3Xw2lPVZP7s7FICY=; b=nN6H6uLVh0cBFQjoe1qg 1cZdvRtjyBvsV5GIECMEOAj/M+eHnwLi6Fm9bUfXKITa46A2BkqfSyojeoVmnggpqE3q35CVea1tl l2SJ8mJBeiX7m/9E9QPqQM0TUsJ7oWHiw8cBCPB7UcOf/5Q+4rw2tBmq1ygnJYrF3uG7bus3I3N1k LyfbdwoZ3HjW3k1J6TDDyDPEDocS8GAxOXQdguYgkTfJO5Xr4HF/V+DcD3x2s50cHPXWAOBEd+6Ud h4iZ8RfIL4OZhK2zteu9r0c68k9I1/9PQ2WN73w/U2ipSfvs8ec0dtLlr2/qfVsxsGluH/5aM8aW+ UXdH6/BSiVlsoA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2100 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mxC0J-0003Ij-G3; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:54:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <3A1A7C04-EF3C-44D9-B777-7F91E2329C15@mit.edu> (message from Qiantan Hong on Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:43:18 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:281931 Archived-At: > From: Qiantan Hong > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:43:18 +0000 > Cc: "larsi@gnus.org" , > "emacs-devel@gnu.org" > > > We don't yet have a good enough understanding of how useful the > > current interface is. Extending and generalizing without any good > > idea where we want to go is not something I'd like to do in Emacs. > If we start with the store.el interface, we probably won’t even have > considered something like multisession.el’s interface. Or we could find out that it's over-generalized, and the additional features are not used. That's what having no experience means: you can err either way. > > We just started this experiment, let's see how it unfolds before > > considering our next steps. > Putting the more specialized multisession.el interface in master means > we will need to provide backward compatibility even if at some point > store.el is added. Assuming we decide that extending what we have is indeed necessary; that is not a given. And if we do decide, I see no catastrophe: we are doing this all the time, keeping backward compatibility as we go. There's no need to be afraid of that. > I don’t see any downside of the other way — providing just store.el > interface from the beginning. Well, I do, and I tried to explain my take of this. It's okay to agree to disagree, of course.