Should we reconsider <NetworkBackend>.sleep()?
#711
tomchristie
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 0 comments
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Pull request #699 adds the networking backends to the public interface.
This exposes a slightly odd bit of API design, which is the
<NetworkBackend>.sleep()method.The naming doesn't really fit there, since pausing for a bit isn't a network operation. However it exists on the backends because the implementation is different for sync and async cases, and also for mock cases we simply
noopit.Are we okay with this slightly appendix-y bit of API, or is there an alternate refactoring that we'd prefer?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions