Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

What is the overall story on Connections? #658

Closed
jgeewax opened this issue Feb 17, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

What is the overall story on Connections? #658

jgeewax opened this issue Feb 17, 2015 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
api: core type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue.

Comments

@jgeewax
Copy link
Contributor

jgeewax commented Feb 17, 2015

I'm noticing that "Connection" objects are slowly being phased out, in favor of gcloud.<service>.do_thing (ie gcloud.storage.get_bucket() or gcloud.datastore.Query(...)).

Did we make a specific call to remove the concept of a connection? Was the a discussion somewhere that I can read up on to understand the background behind that?

/cc @tseaver @dhermes

@jgeewax jgeewax added type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue. api: core labels Feb 17, 2015
@jgeewax jgeewax added this to the Core Stable milestone Feb 17, 2015
@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented Feb 17, 2015

They aren't being phased out and they aren't going anywhere.

We've discussed in our meetings that they be stateless and are simply a way to make HTTP requests to the service.


Datastore: We allow connection as an optional argument in methods / functions that use one. Using implicitly set connections, a user can happily use the library without needing to know what a connection is.

This was spurred on by comments that there were "too many classes". We realized that we didn't need the typical user to worry about a Connection (beyond setting the right environment variable for credentials).

We still made sure one could be used.


Storage: We are in the process of making the API surface easier to use. In this attempt we are trying to "hide" the Connection class from typical users and do the same thing.

I've created #632 for my proposal on storage, and @tseaver also made some previous remarks.

@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented Feb 18, 2015

@jgeewax Do we still need this issue open?

@jgeewax
Copy link
Contributor Author

jgeewax commented Feb 18, 2015

I think you answered the -- closing :)

@jgeewax jgeewax closed this as completed Feb 18, 2015
vchudnov-g pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 20, 2023
* docs: Minor formatting

PiperOrigin-RevId: 552790519

Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis@a03330a

Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis-gen@4caca49
Copy-Tag: eyJwIjoiLmdpdGh1Yi8uT3dsQm90LnlhbWwiLCJoIjoiNGNhY2E0OWIzZTA3MzE5MmNiNGEyOTVjMWNmYTFjZjg1MjY2YzI4ZCJ9

* 🦉 Updates from OwlBot post-processor

See https://github.com/googleapis/repo-automation-bots/blob/main/packages/owl-bot/README.md

* docs: Minor formatting

PiperOrigin-RevId: 552837489

Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis@7154a94

Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis-gen@4538a83
Copy-Tag: eyJwIjoiLmdpdGh1Yi8uT3dsQm90LnlhbWwiLCJoIjoiNDUzOGE4M2EwYTA4N2MzYjFjYzA5MjQ1ZjBlZDg2ODc1ZWI4ODMyZCJ9

* 🦉 Updates from OwlBot post-processor

See https://github.com/googleapis/repo-automation-bots/blob/main/packages/owl-bot/README.md

---------

Co-authored-by: Owl Bot <gcf-owl-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Anthonios Partheniou <partheniou@google.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api: core type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants