Allow setting 'bucket.storage_class'.

[tseaver]

Fixes #1030.

[dhermes]

Only one question, why not add to the constructor? Or make the constructor take **kwargs** that we can farm out to setters.

[tseaver]

why not add to the constructor?

We have four settable properties: cors, lifecycle_rules, storage_class, and versioning_enabled: we would likely need to allow any of them to be set, if we wanted this feature.

Or make the constructor take kwargs that we can farm out to setters.

Ugh: we lose Python's type checking, and have to add it in ourselves.

[dhermes]

How you mean type checking? Do the setters do any? Wouldn't they still?

[tseaver]

How you mean type checking? Do the setters do any? Wouldn't they still?

That was an objection to using **kw, vs. explicitly-named arguments. All of those properties are rare enough cases that we can leave them out of the constructor.

[dhermes]

Gotcha. So WDYT about just adding storage_class to the constructor (or all four)?

[tseaver]

WDYT about just adding storage_class to the constructor (or all four)?

👎 Seems like a complication for a pretty rare case, with an easy-to-understand alternative already present.

[dhermes]

OK LGTM

(Responding from email for first time ever. Like whoa. Weird.)

Danny Hermes
On Nov 10, 2015 6:21 PM, "Tres Seaver" notifications@github.com wrote:

WDYT about just adding storage_class to the constructor (or all four)?

[image: 👎] Seems like a complication for a pretty rare case, with an
easy-to-understand alternative already present.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1213 (comment)
.