deprecate ReadSeekCloser in favor of io.ReadSeekCloser #3788
Conversation
d42e1bf to
bcf144b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I get that distribution.ReadSeekCloser is now type aliased to io.ReadSeekCloser but I still wonder if many of these funcs should be returning io.ReadSeekCloser instead of distribution.ReadSeekCloser; seems like type aliasing does the trick and we dont need to change those return values. Is the reason for that change to be explicit about the type we return
|
The
But, at the time, Go was still at version 1.4, and Line 1 in 593bbcc While the alias would "work", it would prevent us from removing it. Using |
Go's io package in stdlib now defines this interface, so we can switch to using that instead. Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
…Closer General convention is to define interfaces on the receiver side, and to return concrete types. Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
Remove some intermediate variables, and use struct literals instead. Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
bcf144b to
1d8cd5e
Compare
We should document this publicly 💯 Ideally, we should not go far back wrt to supporting older versions - it's an actual nightmare sometimes to be b/w compatible to ancient version. |
|
Go recommendation is to support current + previous (which are the only "supported" versions). I think it's ok if we go for try to support "last 3 versions" (as some projects may be lingering slightly behind), but we should clearly document that to be a "best effort". |
|
@corhere PTAL |
Go's io package in stdlib now defines this interface, so we can switch to using that instead. Also doing some minor cleanup.
The remaining use of this interface is removed in #3787