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

Drop Connection classes (or at least make them non-public) #2606

Closed
dhermes opened this issue Oct 25, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

Drop Connection classes (or at least make them non-public) #2606

dhermes opened this issue Oct 25, 2016 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
api: core type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue.

Comments

@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented Oct 25, 2016

The Logging / Pub/Sub / Datastore packages all have custom API objects that do that actual communication with the server. Now Connection is just a container for some members that those API objects require. Should we remove these base classes and make any shared behavior from the core Connection into helper functions instead of a shared base?

@dhermes dhermes added type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue. api: core labels Oct 25, 2016
@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor Author

dhermes commented Nov 4, 2016

Just chatted with @tseaver about this and we both seem to agree, the answer is "yes" to "Should we...".

Sending a PR for BigQuery, Datastore, Logging, Pub/Sub and Storage ASAP.

@theacodes
Copy link
Contributor

With the switch to google-auth, there is even less code in the Connection class - more fuel for this fire.

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

3 participants