Live data from Hacker News

Viewing profile — kenshaw

kenshaw

HN member
Joined
Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 11:47 PM UTC
HN karma
513
Public activity
123 items

About kenshaw

No profile information was provided.

Recent public activity

  1. comment
    Comment #44641727

    I encountered this while trying to issue a new certificate for a service. As a temporary fix, started using ZeroSSL which conveniently also supports the ACME protocol. While not a …

  2. story
  3. comment
    Comment #32892452

    Thanks, appreciate the package. I submitted a PR as I was also looking for a Go package similar to this, and wanted to make using this as a library a bit easier. I plan on using th…

  4. comment
  5. comment
    Comment #28478145

    I'm the author of xo. I appreciate the reference here, but that's not really what xo does. It generates all boilerplate for you directly based on whatever is defined by the databas…

  6. comment
    Comment #28478118

    That's cool. As per the other comment, you should share it with the community.

  7. story
  8. story
  9. comment
    Comment #26375245

    A long overdue release. General bug fixes, \d* commands, new database support, and a native Oracle driver.

  10. story
  11. comment
    Comment #21487891

    Foreign keys should definitely be used in most schema designs. While I can agree that they are problematic when doing a schema migration, a schema migration would only happen "very…

  12. comment
    Comment #20589793

    I disagree, and history does not show this to be true. We have been more fickle when it comes to instant messengers than almost any other technology on the face of the planet (pun …

  13. comment
    Comment #20589478

    I appreciate your response, and will give you the benefit of doubt -- however this is in conflict with what a superficial reading of Schneiner's article suggests. Reading the repor…

  14. comment
    Comment #18945862

    Yes, I understand how this would be done. It's a design philosophy. If you'd like Gunk to support "oneof", we're open to Pull Requests!

  15. comment
    Comment #18945740

    Gunk is a frontend to protoc. If one needs to use "oneof", it's still possible to just define it in a .proto file. Gunk interoperates cleanly with both .proto and .gunk files.

  16. comment
    Comment #18945727

    lowmagnet more or gave a succinct summary. I've also now added other comments here, discussing my views. I don't believe it's necessary, and I would proscribe other ways to accompl…

  17. comment
    Comment #18945722

    I feel very strongly that type safety is of paramount importance in development, and "oneof" (and other similar constructs) in protocol design breaks fundamental ideas of type safe…

  18. comment
    Comment #18945716

    In proto3 all fields are optional. As such, I don't see the need for "oneof" since you should check in business logic whether or not the field is there. By using "oneof" you are de…

  19. comment
    Comment #18945707

    I haven't specifically looked at the Kubernetes code base, but I will -- thanks for the pointer! We plan to expand / support / better standardize the annotations in the github.com/…

  20. comment
    Comment #18945706

    Yes, this has the added benefit of standardizing protocol buffer based workflows across teams / repositories. I appreciate the criticism, but we (the Brankas developers) find this …

  21. comment
    Comment #18945699

    There is an explanation in the README file, but I'll explain: It helps to standardize workflows across a number of different source repositories (all Go based), where a number of d…

  22. comment
    Comment #18937997

    Thanks for the input -- this actually does support enums, using a variant of Go's const: type MyEnum int const ( MYENUMVAL MyEnum = iota ) It's a philosophical argument, but one sh…

  23. comment
    Comment #18937203

    We just pushed the first initial, public release of Gunk, a modern frontend and syntax for Protocol Buffers. Check out releases here: https://github.com/gunk/gunk/releases/tag/v0.1…

  24. story
  25. comment
    Comment #18368196

    You do not know what you are talking about. It is very clear (based on the above statements) that you have minimal, if zero real computer science education. Please stop commenting …