Open titusfortner opened 1 month ago
@pujagani I'm guessing we don't have a good reason for not adding it to java, yet?
Thank you for bringing this up. Actually we can add it.
"options.enableBiDi(true)" - @titusfortner Should the user need to pass in true? Isn't enableBidi()
sufficient?
@pujagani I thought the other methods in Java Options that are boolean require passing in true/false. So, we should do whatever matches the rest of our code.
That is a fair point. Though the naming, in that case, is like setEnableDownloads(boolean enableDownloads)
. I was thinking if the name is enableBiDi
, then that means just enable it. But if we want to set a value then the name should be such. What do you think?
If setXX(boolean) is the pattern, then we should follow that, though I agree it seems a bit much. @diemol any opinions on our conventions here?
I am not sure. If we want to set a property or a value, I like the setXYZ
pattern, but if we want to enable a feature, I prefer the enableXYZ
pattern.
This is to be said, I saw setEnableDownloads
too late; it was already released. I would have done enableDownloads
.
Thank you folks. I think I will go with enableBiDi
.
Feature and motivation
Java & Python are missing convenience methods for enabling BiDi.
Right now we have.... .NET — options.UseWebSocketUrl = true Ruby — options.web_socket_url = true Python — options.enable_bidi = True JS — enableBidi() Java - enableBidi()
Should we update everything to use
enableBiDi()
name?Usage example