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 > > > > >
