Instead of using a multiple inheritance lib, what are your feelings on just having ServiceObject extend EventEmitter? I realize that this will add event emitter methods to all service classes, however they'll be undocumented and won't really bring any overhead.

That sounds a little crazy. Why would we do that?

Well if you just create a prototype chain, then you can have something inherit for multiple "classes". And it seems to me that the only reason we're even including a multiple inheritance lib is because on certain objects we want to use EventEmitter but we're already extending a ServiceObject.

That is why we're using it. But that's the only place we need it, so I
don't think it's more logical to make all classes event emitters.

On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Dave Gramlich notifications@github.com
wrote:

Well if you just create a prototype chain, then you can have something
inherit for multiple "classes". And it seems to me that the only reason
we're even including a multiple inheritance lib is because on certain
objects we want to use EventEmitter but we're already extending a
ServiceObject.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#944 (comment)
.

Well, that's not true - #939 is also using it to extend both an event emitter and service object.

The point is not all. I don't think we want all of our classes to be event
emitters, just the ones that need it.

On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Dave Gramlich notifications@github.com
wrote:

Well, that's not true - #939
#939 is also
using it to extend both an event emitter and service object.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#944 (comment)
.

Fair enough!