From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 92E8026D79 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 12:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WmiX52RuFrxP for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 12:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp52.i.mail.ru (smtp52.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id D06232694F for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 12:41:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 5/5] swim: expose Lua triggers on member update References: <12b8ea76f7c1cd100a80ddcea3c29d20354e073e.1559433539.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org> <20190608142753.GJ31327@atlas> <20190609051528.GR31327@atlas> From: Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: <2b5ebcbc-2a2d-0124-f940-b240c07f90f9@tarantool.org> Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 18:41:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190609051528.GR31327@atlas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: Konstantin Osipov Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org On 09/06/2019 08:15, Konstantin Osipov wrote: > * Vladislav Shpilevoy [19/06/08 22:52]: >> This is exactly what I was trying to avoid with all these >> mask metamethods. I want to be able in future to add old values >> of updated member attributes, if it will be necessary. It will >> be easy without breaking the old code, if from now we will return >> just an abstract 'events' object with some metamethods. >> >> Also probably in future we will not return the events as a mask. >> So I don't want to expose swim_ev_mask to Lua API. >> >> I've fixed the documentation with 'events' -> 'event' rename. >> Just treat the object as a complex event from multiple parts. > > OK, but what if I want to test a combination of events? With > masks, I could just pass a bit.bor() mask to the caller, without I > have to invoke :is..() multiple times. Unfortunately, here it is a price of not exposing any internal details of 'event' object. You need to use multiple 'is_...()' to check for multiple events. > > Anyway, LGTM after rename. > Pushed to the master.