juju/retry take 2 - looping

[Ian Booth]

I really like where the enhancements are headed. I feel they offer the syntax
that some folks wanted, with the safety and validation of the initial
implementation. Best of both worlds.

On 20/10/16 13:09, Tim Penhey wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> https://github.com/juju/retry/pull/5/files
> 
> As often is the case, the pure solution is not always the best. What seemed
> initially like the best approach didn't end up that way.
> 
> Both Katherine and Roger had other retry proposals that got me thinking about
> changes to the juju/retry package. The stale-mate from the tech board made me
> want to try another approach that I thought about while walking the dog today.
> 
> I wanted the security and fall-back of validation of the various looping
> attributes, while making the call site much more obvious.
> The pull request has the result of this attempt.
> 
> It is by no means perfect, but an improvement I think. I was able to trivially
> reimplement retry.Call with the retry.Loop concept with no test changes.
> 
> The tests are probably the best way to look at the usage.
> 
> Tim
>