Closed CanadaHonk closed 1 year ago
I like the simplicity of a setter, but I fear the "magic" to do it is a bad idea.
Comfiest api though...
I think i prefer impl A to impl B though of those two.
I suppose we could support both (or all)? Would probably overcomplicate things though.
Adding all 3 implementations described in the issue.
I prefer Implementation B since it allows you to easily define multiple functions in 1 call, so you wouldn't have to keep calling the function.
Thanks for your input. Both implementations are now supported in current branch, as well as the setter.
I like the idea of having two implementations as well. Can't wait to see where this API goes!
given this is fully implemented, is this rfc closable now?
Will be closed upon v0.10 release shortly.
Second (major) iteration of IPC API. I dislike having to use an event-based system, I think there should be a wrapper for most developers to use which allows seemingly exposing functions into the web context, either via a function or using a setter in the IPC API object.
Expose
Function
Implementation A
Implementation B
Setter
Example usage
Unexpose
Function
Setter
Example usage
I'm leaning towards using a setter, but it might seem strange/wrong to some people (for the first time). Please comment with which you prefer and/or opinions on all!