On Wed, Sep 6, 2017, at 01:18, Tom Bentley wrote: > Hi Colin, > > Thanks for taking the time to respond. > > On 5 September 2017 at 22:22, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > ... > > Why does there need to be a map at all in the API? > > > From a purely technical PoV there doesn't, but doing something else would > make the API inconsistent with other similar AdminClient *Results > classes, > which all expose a Map directly. > > > > Why not just have > > something like this: > > > > I agree this would be a better solution. I will update the KIP and ask > people to vote again. (Is that the right process?) > > It might be worth bearing this in mind for future AdminClient APIs: > Exposing a Map directly means you can't retrofit handling a null argument > to mean "all the things", whereas wrapping the map would allow that.
That's a good point. I guess the important thing to keep in mind is that if you return a map from a results class, it has to be instantiated eagerly. It has to be something you know before any RPCs are made, async actions are performed, etc. best, Colin > > Thanks again, > > Tom
