From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp33.i.mail.ru (smtp33.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.93])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72A45469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu,  1 Oct 2020 06:05:25 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 06:05:38 +0300
From: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20201001030538.iar7bimdtm63j7rc@tkn_work_nb>
References: <cover.1600955781.git.tsafin@tarantool.org>
 <afd919d94277c0001f21ace94a9cf9f6857483ee.1600955781.git.tsafin@tarantool.org>
 <578d97ed-92a0-0154-a244-f94c36f32873@tarantool.org>
 <20200929050340.hwglcb2s4yyadcjr@tkn_work_nb>
 <ec260839-7553-6522-5a5b-99f1012aedce@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ec260839-7553-6522-5a5b-99f1012aedce@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 2/7] module api: export
 box_key_def_dup
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:19:19AM +0200, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> On 29.09.2020 07:03, Alexander Turenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:21:02AM +0200, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> >> Thanks for the patch!
> >>
> >> See 2 comments below.
> >>
> >> On 24.09.2020 19:00, Timur Safin wrote:
> >>> Exporting `box_key_def_dup` as accessor to the internal `key_def_dup`
> >>
> >> 1. Do you really need this method? It looks like it can be done by
> >>
> >> 	old_parts = box_key_def_dump_parts(old_key_def);
> >> 	new_key_def = box_key_def_new_ex(old_parts);
> >>
> >> So the method seems redundant.
> > 
> > It is not strictly necessary, however using of box_key_def_dup() would
> > be less error-prone (no extra allocations) and the resulting code would
> > be more readable. My vote is for this method if you have no strict
> > objections.
> 
> Regarding this one I am not strictly against, but I don't like overloading
> module API with too many methods, especially with the trivial ones, which
> can be easily implemented via the others in a few lines.

I'll not strictly against if Timur will decide to going this way, but
personally I would not be very comfortable with copying over
serialization-deserialization if I would be author of the external
module.