5 ms·

Yikes! That's a horrible thing for a library to do to its users. This definitely should be changed in the library. I noticed that no such Issue exists, so I op

Yikes! That's a horrible thing for a library to do to its users. This definitely should be changed in the library. I noticed that no such Issue exists, so I opened one. https://github.com/boto/boto/issues/2078 https://github.com/boto/boto/issues/2078

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
I kind of agree with garnaat's reply, if they just suddenly change the default from TRUE to FALSE they're going to break backwards compatibility with anyone using the library and worse still in a really subtle way! All they can really do at this stage is add a warning to the documentation and hope that new people using the library figure out the significance.
- jahewson 13y ago
  This is what major version numbers are for.
- jey 13y ago
  Or issue an actual runtime warning: http://docs.python.org/2/library/warnings.html http://docs.python.org/2/library/warnings.html
- Negitivefrags 13y ago
  That's why you should avoid using default arguments in library functions.
  - jhenkens 13y ago
    Great point! I have never heard that, but it makes perfect sense. Hopefully I will remember in the future.
    - reconbot 13y ago
      I don't agree, you should just know what they are. Defaults are helpful.
      - tnorthcutt 13y ago
        Until they change, and your code breaks, and you have to go figure out why. The point of not (silently) using defaults is that as long as you're explicit with your arguments, you won't get surprised by changing defaults. Of course, you might get surprised by any number of other changes, but you can at least reduce your failure surface area a little bit :-)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bevenky 13y ago
We have been using this in production for over 2 years at scale and just cross checked to have this enabled. Totally agree, that this should be default False!
toomuchtodo 13y ago
James, It looks like a HEAD request can fulfill the same purpose at a much lower cost (this is mentioned by a comment on your Issue: (comment by kislyuk) http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/RESTBucketHEAD.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/RESTBucketHEA... Shall I make the change and pull request it? I didn't want to duplicate effort.
- jameskilton 13y ago
  Aye, this does look like the right way to handle this functionality. I'm not planning on doing a PR so have at it.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Working on it now.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Don't you have too much to do?
      - avalaunch 13y ago
        We should all be happy that amongst those things he considers "too much to do" is contribute to open source projects.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Agreed!
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        I took the nickname because I always take on more than I have time for, yet find the time to complete everything that I take on.
        13y ago

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago

I kind of agree with garnaat's reply, if they just suddenly change the default from TRUE to FALSE they're going to break backwards compatibility with anyone using the library and worse still in a really subtle way! All they can really do at this stage is add a warning to the documentation and hope that new people using the library figure out the significance.

jahewson 13y ago
This is what major version numbers are for.
jey 13y ago
Or issue an actual runtime warning: http://docs.python.org/2/library/warnings.html http://docs.python.org/2/library/warnings.html
Negitivefrags 13y ago
That's why you should avoid using default arguments in library functions.
- jhenkens 13y ago
  Great point! I have never heard that, but it makes perfect sense. Hopefully I will remember in the future.
  - reconbot 13y ago
    I don't agree, you should just know what they are. Defaults are helpful.
    - tnorthcutt 13y ago
      Until they change, and your code breaks, and you have to go figure out why. The point of not (silently) using defaults is that as long as you're explicit with your arguments, you won't get surprised by changing defaults. Of course, you might get surprised by any number of other changes, but you can at least reduce your failure surface area a little bit :-)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bevenky 13y ago

We have been using this in production for over 2 years at scale and just cross checked to have this enabled. Totally agree, that this should be default False!

toomuchtodo 13y ago

James, It looks like a HEAD request can fulfill the same purpose at a much lower cost (this is mentioned by a comment on your Issue: (comment by kislyuk) http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/RESTBucketHEAD.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/RESTBucketHEA... Shall I make the change and pull request it? I didn't want to duplicate effort.

jameskilton 13y ago
Aye, this does look like the right way to handle this functionality. I'm not planning on doing a PR so have at it.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Working on it now.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Don't you have too much to do?
    - avalaunch 13y ago
      We should all be happy that amongst those things he considers "too much to do" is contribute to open source projects.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Agreed!
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      I took the nickname because I always take on more than I have time for, yet find the time to complete everything that I take on.
      - 13y ago