Skip to content

POC how an emulated async strategy may look like #65

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Nyholm
Copy link
Member

@Nyholm Nyholm commented Jun 30, 2016

This PR should not be merged. I just want to show how I, as an application author, may force discovery to emulate an async client.

Ref: #57

@sagikazarmark
Copy link
Member

I don't really like this. It adds an optional dependency. And IMO this is not how resources should be resolved.

Also, this is not much code: I would just have something similar in the docs or cookbook.

@Nyholm
Copy link
Member Author

Nyholm commented Jun 30, 2016

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The EmulateAsyncClientStrategy does not belong in this repo for the reason you mention. But if we should allow a class similar to EmulateAsyncClientStrategy in the cookbook we have to make the changes in the ClassDiscovery and the the other *Discovery classes.

I just want your feedback/opinions/suggestions for the changes in the ClassDiscovery and the *Discovery classes.

See #57 (comment)

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
*
* @param string $type
*
* @return string
* @return string|\Closure
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we want to allow this function to return a Closure?

@Nyholm
Copy link
Member Author

Nyholm commented Jul 2, 2016

Im closing this PR in favor for #66.

@Nyholm Nyholm closed this Jul 2, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants