ServiceBusPlugin : Async postfix for methods?

[StefH]

These two methods:

public virtual Task<Message> BeforeMessageSend(Message message);
public virtual Task<Message> AfterMessageReceive(Message message);

are Async methods, so should they be postfixed by Async like?

public virtual Task<Message> BeforeMessageSendAsync(Message message);
public virtual Task<Message> AfterMessageReceiveAsync(Message message);

[SeanFeldman]

For consistency sake, that should be prefixed. Saying that, given this library is all about IO, the Async suffix feel somewhat unnecessary. I'd rather see Sync suffix to call out what is not asynchronous 🙂.

To address this specific issue, it would need to wait for the next major as it will be a breaking change.

[axisc]

Prefer to have async as the implicit/default contract, and sync as the explicit contract.

@SeanFeldman - recommend not having this change done, to avoid barriers to adopting the newest library when it is available.

Let me know if you both feel otherwise

[SeanFeldman]

recommend not having this change done, to avoid barriers to adopting the newest library when it is available.

Change suggested by @StefH is a good change. For the next major. I don't see how it would cause a barrier for adoption @axisc.

[axisc]

I see the value, but we will have to support

public virtual Task<Message> BeforeMessageSend(Message message);
public virtual Task<Message> AfterMessageReceive(Message message);

along with

public virtual Task<Message> BeforeMessageSendAsync(Message message);
public virtual Task<Message> AfterMessageReceiveAsync(Message message);

Else, customers would have to change the references to non Async methods and add Async as a suffix.

[SeanFeldman]

That's API deprecation process, correct.
For v4 you'd be obsoleting with warning.
For v5 obsoleting with error.
Removing in v6.

Here's an example of how I've done this.