On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:58:37 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> | invalidation | values | changes | >>> |---|---|---| >>> |`subscribe(Runnable)`(*)|`subscribe(Consumer)`(*)|`subscribe(BiConsumer)`(*)| >>> |`subscribeInvalidations(Runnable)`|`subscribeValues(Consumer)`|`subscribeChanges(BiConsumer)`| >>> |`invalidationsTo(Runnable)`|`valuesTo(Consumer)`|`changesTo(BiConsumer)`| >>> >>> (*) May limit future listener types that have same arity, but can still be >>> a good choice >> >> My preference is in the order you listed them. If we go with `subscribe`, >> using method name overloading, do want to add a future overload that takes a >> type with the same arity as one of the existing three, we can always assign >> a new name to that new method (since adding another overload wouldn't be >> source compatible, we would likely need a new name at that point). >> >> @nlisker @andy-goryachev-oracle @mstr2 - what do you think? > >> On that same topic of naming methods: >> >> What do people think of `Subscription#unsubscribe`? Should it be `cancel`? >> Something else? Okay as it is? > > OK as is. Especially if we go with one of the two choices with "subscribe" in > the name. I might prefer the second option, subscribeXXX(). And unsubscribe() is good. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1069#discussion_r1240464736
