feat(AIP-136): prohibit "async" in custom method RPC names #1105
Conversation
aip/general/0136.md
Outdated
| @@ -44,6 +44,9 @@ services. The bullets below apply in all three cases. | |||
| - The name **must not** contain prepositions ("for", "with", etc.). | |||
| - The verb in the name **should not** contain any of the standard method verbs ([Get][], | |||
| [List][], [Create][], [Update][], [Delete][]). | |||
| - The name **must not** include the term `Async`. Instead, the verb `Begin` **may** | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to suggest anything? The fact that it's an LRO should already indicate it's async, and we should be extrapolating from the RPC interface as much as possible.
I guess the distinction is critical when there's a synchronous / async version. In that case Start could also be a good synonym, but that might also cause problems if we're trying to introduce a job pattern. Just brainstorming.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it is to differentiate, I'd say we should clarify that you shouldn't add any prefix and the only situation is if you're trying to create an LRO variant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was to differentiate in the only case I've come across, which was when there were already standard methods. Will add something.
jskeet
force-pushed
the
no-async
branch
2 times, most recently
from
31722a1 to
0d8f7e6
Compare
aip/general/0136.md
Outdated
| - The name **must not** include the term `Async`. Instead, if the intention is | ||
| to differentiate between immediate and long-running RPCs, the verb `Begin` **may** | ||
| be used for this purpose. For example, to create a long-running book creation RPC | ||
| (if the standard `CreateBook` method was designed before long-running aspects were |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think "longrunning" was discussed as the suffix offline? would that not work?
- it's a suffix: easy to add to the end and still have pattern matching on the relevant prefix portion
- hints at the major difference: LRO vs non-LRO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was definitely suggested, as was this - more discussion needed, I think. (I'm happy to change this to CreateBookLongRunning if that's preferred.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the only blocker for my approval, so if you're happy to change it I'd love that!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you can continue discussion in the internal space to get consensus, I'll fix it up tomorrow UK time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ack, we have the design meeting tomorrow too, where we could discuss.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I said this in offline but: I'm supportive of LongRunning as a prefix/suffix when introducing an asynchronous variant of a synchronous method
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup. I probably won't be able to make the meeting tomorrow, but I'm happy with whatever everyone else agrees :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suffix, LongRunning, works for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That sounds like a quorum. Thanks - will update tomorrow UK time, and ping for final approvals.
No description provided.