Change links structure to more simple #20
Conversation
Change links structure to the list of the key-value pairs - in this way, link types will be just one enum and implementation of the final structure will be much easier for the end-user point of view
|
Just so we're clear, you're suggesting e.g.
? |
|
Exactly |
|
If this change is fine with you then I will update description to include example |
|
I like it, I think it's cleaner. Let's see if we can get another pair of eyes on it. We'll have to change all our examples, of course. |
|
I like the simplification. One drawback is that I do not think the Json validation will be able to catch that we have more then one link of a single link type. This will not be detected as illegal |
|
True, but we can't validate the legality of links to any significant extent anyway 😦 (I just realized there's a ton of emojis available. I'm so going to abuse them...) |
|
We'll go for this. We need to update all examples, obviously. Are you willing to do that, @Andrey9kin, then we can merge in both repos at once. |
|
@d-stahl-ericsson I push pulled request to examples repo. Would it make sense to merge those two repos? Why do you want them separate? |
|
The reason to keep them in individual repositories is to keep different types of information separate. This repository is documentation, intended for human consumers. Eiffel-examples primarily contains sample events in various constellations, which you would typically subscribe to in e.g. CI jobs. |
|
@d-stahl-ericsson I just thought that those example samples will be consumed by the readers of the protocol and then it would be good to have them in the same place. Also, it helps to sync changes - you can change all you need in one commit securing consistency |
|
There are pros and cons. The separation of concerns between the repositories is useful, but keeping track of multiple repositories also adds some overhead. We'll see how it plays out in the long run. |
|
Going back on topic: We need a larger rewrite of the links documentation. Do you want to update this PR, or should I/we do a new one? |
|
@d-stahl-ericsson if you have a possibility then please go ahead and do necessary updates. I'm teaching CD this week in Trondheim university and it takes more or less all my time |
|
Ok, I created a new pull request, #25. Closing this one. |
The file maps all paths to the repository maintainers' GitHub team.
Change links structure to the list of the key-value pairs - in this way, link types will be just one enum and implementation of the final structure will be much easier for the end-user point of view