Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

API Breaking Changes: Method Names #54

Closed
amark opened this issue May 20, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

API Breaking Changes: Method Names #54

amark opened this issue May 20, 2015 · 4 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@amark
Copy link
Owner

amark commented May 20, 2015

The internals are changing a bunch, but how you USE gun stays the same, with the EXCEPTION of some API renaming:

  • .get will be renamed to .val
  • .load will be renamed to .get
  • .set will be renamed to .put
  • .all will be introduced.

Are the major things, some minor details like .blank is being renamed .not or maybe depreciated.

@amark amark added this to the 0.2.0 milestone May 20, 2015
@Xe
Copy link

Xe commented May 20, 2015

API breaking changes should be noted specifically on the release notes, but otherwise the changes and the underlying interfaces look fine, with the exception that changing the definition of get might be confusing. However seeing as we are pre-1.0 there's not a large impetus to care.

@amark
Copy link
Owner Author

amark commented May 20, 2015

Agreed on everything, including that the get change is really confusing. But I think it is ideal because now get is being used in a more "normal" sense (HTTP / REST) and the val is being more explicit (I want to get the VALUE of the data back, not the GUN reference to the data).

@metasean
Copy link
Collaborator

"API breaking changes should be noted specifically on the release notes..." - Yes they should, and yes they will :-)

"... the changes and the underlying interfaces look fine, with the exception that changing the definition of get might be confusing." - It absolutely can be seen as confusing. I'm going to do my best in the documentation and release notes to minimize the confusion.

"However seeing as we are pre-1.0 there's not a large impetus to care." - These changes will still impact people's existing projects, so these aren't changes we're taking lightly. However, we agreed that we are pre-1.0, and we feel that in the long term these method names should be more clear.

@metasean metasean assigned metasean and unassigned amark May 20, 2015
@metasean metasean mentioned this issue Jun 2, 2015
Closed
@metasean metasean added the Core label Jun 2, 2015
@amark amark added Pending and removed InProgress labels Jun 8, 2015
@amark amark added Document and removed InProgress labels Jul 6, 2015
@amark
Copy link
Owner Author

amark commented Jul 8, 2015

Has SOME documentation, but can always be improved #70. So I'm closing this.

@amark amark closed this as completed Jul 8, 2015
@amark amark removed the Document label Jul 8, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants