3 ms·
The code is mutable, but the cost to fix it during the original code review is WAY lower. Once you land RPC DescribeFoo, I have to: 1) Define a second paralle
by Arainach 3y ago
The code is mutable, but the cost to fix it during the original code review is WAY lower.
Once you land RPC DescribeFoo, I have to:
1) Define a second parallel RPC GetFoo
2) Wait for it to roll out to prod
3) Update all callers to call GetFoo, probably controlled with an experiment for safe rollover
4) Wait for all of those to roll out
5) Clean up all the callers
6) Clean up the DescribeFoo RPC
.....or you could just fix it in code review with half an hour of work.
- withinboredom 3y agoI thought it was DetermineFoo? Anyway. To me, DetermineFoo doesn't sound like a getter and seems like it might even possibly mutate some states. So, I suspect creating a GetFoo would be orthogonal to deprecating DetermineFoo. This means DetermineFoo might only Get a Foo by side-effect. That's why I would probably ignore it; simply because DetermineFoo might be a better name, in my opinion. New behaviors occur all the time in software, but it doesn't mean we need to be rigid with naming things.