add Cache constructor#55
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why is this a constructor param instead of just using the setter after you made it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ptarjan I thought it would be easier to use the debug feature.
Instead of call the setter explicitly, you can just add true, when you create the instance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sure, that would be easier for any option. I'd prefer to not single out this one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see, isn't debug the only option ? 😃
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, but this library will be around for many years, and will probably get options along the way
There was a problem hiding this comment.
make sense, I removed it.
|
@zhangfan2012fall The tests pass because only one instance of the Cache is ever created/referred to. |
|
@weastmann fixed, I dropped the ball here 😭 |
|
@zhangfan2012fall Looks good. |
|
I came to propose exactly this feature. |
|
👍 I'd like to see this integrated as well. |
|
I would like to see this kind of functionality integrated as well :) |
|
@debrouxl if you want to rebase it, I'm willing to take it. |
→_→ |
add Cache constructor (rebase of #55)
#43 Not sure what happened to that PR, I also need to be able to create new cache instance.
Instead of a factory method, I added a constructor