You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently the RequestParameter types in OpenSearch.Net are in specific namespaces such as OpenSearch.Net.Specification.SnapshotApi, however in OpenSearch.Client all Request and Descriptor types are directly placed in the OpenSearch.Client namespace. This is prone to collisions in naming as some have very generic names such as RestoreRequest which will collide with remote store's restore operation. As such I propose moving the Request/Descriptor classes in OpenSearch.Client into matching respective namespaces as is done in OpenSearch.Net.
What/Why
What are you proposing?
Currently the
RequestParameter
types inOpenSearch.Net
are in specific namespaces such asOpenSearch.Net.Specification.SnapshotApi
, however inOpenSearch.Client
allRequest
andDescriptor
types are directly placed in theOpenSearch.Client
namespace. This is prone to collisions in naming as some have very generic names such asRestoreRequest
which will collide with remote store's restore operation. As such I propose moving the Request/Descriptor classes inOpenSearch.Client
into matching respective namespaces as is done inOpenSearch.Net
.What users have asked for this feature?
What problems are you trying to solve?
Collisions of type names due to placing all requests into the same namespace.
Are there any security considerations?
No
What is the user experience going to be?
User experience is unchanged other than needing to add new
usings
for specific namespaces.Are there breaking changes to the User Experience?
Yes, namespaces will change, as such users will have to update their
usings
, otherwise API remains identical.Why should it be built? Any reason not to?
OpenSearch.Net
andOpenSearch.Client
What will it take to execute?
Reasonably low-effort changing namespaces of all request and descriptor types.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: