Hi Dale,

I agree ... we should make it mandatory.
Let's hear what the others have to say.


Am 19.02.18, 16:23 schrieb "Dale LaBossiere" <dml.apa...@gmail.com>:

    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 
    — Dale
    > On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> 
    > 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

Reply via email to