I think I’m generally +1 on this, though I think *optional* names may just make it harder / less predictable to use these objects. Why not just require names? This also relates to the usability of a batch request/response object, and the ability to offer a get-item-by-name accessor, instead of just get-item-by-meaningless-index :-)
Since a ResponseItem has an associated RequestItem, there seems to be no need for it to have it’s own name (regardless of memory impact). Though for convenience, it could still have a getName() accessor (that was just getRequestItem().getName()). — Dale > On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I’m currently whipping up a first POC for usage on a real machine (Not just > our companies Christmas tree) ;-) > While at it, I did notice again what I had noticed a few times before: It > would be cool if we could assign a “name” or “alias” to a request item. > With this for example I could auto-serialize a read-response with meaningful > names. I would make it optional, but I think it could be helpful. > Also I wouldn’t assign it to the response items, but just the request items > so the amount of memory used would be minimal. > > What do you think? > > Chris
