Skip to content

Conversation

bollhals
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed Changes

Gets rid of the duality of AsyncDefaultConsumer and DefaultConsumer.

Types of Changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes issue #NNNN)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause an observable behavior change in existing systems)
  • Documentation improvements (corrections, new content, etc)
  • Cosmetic change (whitespace, formatting, etc)

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
  • I have signed the CA (see https://cla.pivotal.io/sign/rabbitmq)
  • All tests pass locally with my changes
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in related repositories

Further Comments

There's still a bit more work, but opening this PR now due to #1413 (comment)

@bollhals
Copy link
Contributor Author

What's the preference for the resulting name of the consumer. Should it be e.g. IBasicConsumer or IAsyncBasicConsumer?

@lukebakken
Copy link
Collaborator

Please use IAsyncBasicConsumer, thanks.

@lukebakken lukebakken self-assigned this Jul 25, 2024
@lukebakken lukebakken self-requested a review July 25, 2024 14:57
@lukebakken lukebakken added this to the 7.0.0 milestone Jul 25, 2024
@bollhals
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please use IAsyncBasicConsumer, thanks.

Just to make sure we understood each other: I'm for sure use the api of the IAsyncBasicConsumer, but should the name itself be IAsyncBasicConsumer or do you want to remove the Async part, as there's only one "consumer type", hence IBasicConsumer is sufficient.

@lukebakken
Copy link
Collaborator

but should the name itself be IAsyncBasicConsumer

Yes, use that name. Thanks.

@bollhals bollhals force-pushed the AsyncConsumerOnly branch from 7c16f26 to 2ac2aa4 Compare July 26, 2024 20:44
@bollhals bollhals marked this pull request as ready for review July 26, 2024 20:44
@michaelklishin
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that IAsyncBasicConsumer is perfectly fine to use as the name, to make it very obvious what this new "unified" implementation is like.

Copy link
Collaborator

@lukebakken lukebakken left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants