collection of renames for 2.0

[weissi]

This is supposed to become a crowd-sourced random collection of renames in SwiftNIO for the 2.0 release. Please just add something like

• [ ] rename FooBar(bar: Bar) to FooBar(_ bar: Bar)

[weissi]

• [x] change ChannelPipeline.add(name: String? = nil, handler: ChannelHandler, first: Bool = false) to ChannelPipeline.addHandler(_ handler: ChannelHandler, name: String?, first: Bool = false)
• [x] change all ports to Int instead of UInt16, right now we're inconsistent
• [x] change ByteBuffer.set(xxx: ...) to ByteBuffer.setXXX(_ xxx: ...), same for write(xxx:
• [x] rename Thread to NIOThread (and more Foundation collisions)
• [x] rename FileHandle to NIOFileHandle (and more Foundation collisions)
• [ ] rename SSLContext to NIOSSLContext (and more Foundation collisions)
• [x] go hunt and remove public extensions of stdlib things that don't use NIO types
• [x] (#776) remove all the labels involved in creating successful/failed futures (such as makeSucceededFuture(result:), the result: part only adds noise

[weissi]

again, CC'ing some folks @helje5 / @tanner0101 / @ianpartridge / @pushkarnk / @MrMage / @tachyonics / @airspeedswift / @moiseev / @kjessup / @normanmaurer / @Lukasa / @Joannis . Please name your small pet peeves here :)

[MrMage]

• [x] rename ctx to context

What’s the motivation for changing port numbers to Int? Aren’t they always unsigned 16-bit integers?

[weissi]

• [x] rename ctx to context

What’s the motivation for changing port numbers to Int? Aren’t they always unsigned 16-bit integers?

it's Swift convention to always use Int for everything (at least in public API unless it really doesn't work, like nanoseconds timeouts need to be Int64 because 32 bit platforms) because it makes interoperability work much better. See for example Array's var count: Int even though clearly it's never negative...

[MrMage]

Makes sense, thanks!

On 27. Nov 2018, at 12:11, Johannes Weiss notifications@github.com wrote:

rename ctx to context What’s the motivation for changing port numbers to Int? Aren’t they always unsigned 16-bit integers?

it's Swift convention to always use Int for everything (at least in public API) because it makes interoperability work much better. See for example Array's var count: Int even though clearly it's never negative...

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[weissi]

• [x] rename new*Promise to make*Promise as of the Swift API guidelines: "Begin names of factory methods with “make”, e.g. x.makeIterator()"
• [x] rename newAddressResolving(host: String, port: Int) to makeAddress(resolvingHost: String, port: Int)
• [x] rename ChannelCore to _ChannelCore as it's public but not part of the public API (as documented)
• [x] rename Sni* to SNI* like SNIHandler or SNIResult

[ianpartridge]

Do you want to tackle https://github.com/apple/swift-nio/pull/602 in 2.0 too?

[weissi]

@ianpartridge absolutely! thanks for reminding me

[weissi]

• [x] rename then to flatMap
• [x] rename thenIfError to flatMapError

to match Result in the stdlib

[tanner0101]

• [ ] rename thenThrowing to mapThrowing and add a thenThrowing that accepts a future.
• [ ] make pipeline handler add / remove methods more consistent. i.e., all should support before / after, first, array, name, etc.
• [ ] add promise.succeed() with no args where Success == Void
• [ ] add convenience method for creating required wrapper to ByteToMessageDecoder. (maybe PostgresMessageDecoder().handler?)
• [ ] add cascadeSuccess to future. (I'll add to this list if I think of any more)

[Lukasa]

What does remove(before:) mean? I don’t think that one makes much sense.

[tanner0101]

What does remove(before:) mean? I don’t think that one makes much sense.

Sorry, the comment should just say "add methods".

Mostly I just think it would be nice to have the option to specify name / after / before when adding multiple handlers. For name, something like [String: ChannelHandler] would be nice. I also think naming the multiple add method add(handlers:) might be more Swifty.

[weissi]

• [ ] rename thenThrowing to mapThrowing and add a thenThrowing that accepts a future.

strong -1 to any name that starts with map*, that name would be just wrong. map's signature is

(ELF<Value>) -> ((Value -> NewValue)) -> ELF<NewValue>

, the important part here is that you can only transform a success to a success and nothing else.

flatMapThrowing (used to be thenThrowing) is a good name because its name is exactly what it does: It takes a throwing thing, converts that to an ELF and then flatMaps that. Works. You just can't implement that function with a map only but you can with a flatMap.

Namely, there's a natural translation from

(A) throws -> B

to

(A) -> EventLoopFuture<B>

which is exactly the right input type for a flatMap. But there isn't any from

(A) throws -> B

to

(A) -> B

which would be the right input type for a map. I'm open to giving it some other name combineThrowing but it can't start with map because that's really wrong and misleading. My point is still that flatMapThrowing is arguably the best name because that's what it is (see it's implementation):

    public func flatMapThrowing<NewValue>(file: StaticString = #file,
                                line: UInt = #line,
                                _ callback: @escaping (Value) throws -> NewValue) -> EventLoopFuture<NewValue> {
        return self.flatMap(file: file, line: line) { (value: Value) -> EventLoopFuture<NewValue> in
            do {
                return EventLoopFuture<NewValue>(eventLoop: self.eventLoop, result: try callback(value), file: file, line: line)
            } catch {
                return EventLoopFuture<NewValue>(eventLoop: self.eventLoop, error: error, file: file, line: line)
            }
        }
    }

but I realise that people don't like it so I'd be open to combineThrowing or so.

• [ ] add promise.succeed() with no args where Success == Void

-1 to this one too. Overloads always lead to sadness and this one saves two characters (#776 is the PR to get rid of the labels for succeed and fail).

• [ ] add cascadeSuccess to future.

+1

[weissi]

closing because mostly done apart from the work already filed as #483