Right a name isn’t really required for the single-item-request case.  Not sure 
that requiring one is that big of an imposition though and I suspect it will 
make an app clearer even in that case.

I know some of this was hashed over a while ago but maybe there should be 
different classes for single vs multi-item requests?  Multi-item requests are 
always composed of named items.  Single-item requests… never/always/optional?   
Separate classes would eliminate the “noise” of the presence of 
getRequestItems() and getNumberOfItems() for single-item users and the 
“inapplicability” of getRequestItem() for multi-item requests.


> On Feb 19, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> 
> wrote:
> 
> But I already did notice that there are drawbacks with mandatory names ... 
> the single value Edgent suppliers for example ... here I need to set a name, 
> even if it's not needed and implicitly given by the pipeline I am plumbing 
> together ...
> 
> Chris
> 
> Am 19.02.18, 16:39 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
> 
>    Hi Dale,
> 
>    I agree ... we should make it mandatory.
>    Let's hear what the others have to say.
> 
>    Chris
> 
>    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 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to