Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

C#/.Net naming conventions for async/await methods #41

Open
2 tasks done
Atteprojects opened this issue Jun 5, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
2 tasks done

C#/.Net naming conventions for async/await methods #41

Atteprojects opened this issue Jun 5, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@Atteprojects
Copy link

Atteprojects commented Jun 5, 2024

🔖 Feature description

The following link has the naming conventions for async/await methods in c#/.Net from Microsoft and the method names in the Appwrite .Net SDk should follow the same pattern. For example, the method to create a user should be CreateAsync() and not just Create().

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/asynchronous-programming/async-scenarios#important-info-and-advice

🎤 Pitch

This should be implemented to make the Appwrite SDK consistent with Microsoft's recommended naming conventions for async/await methods.

Related thread: https://discord.com/channels/564160730845151244/1247715993460146256

👀 Have you spent some time to check if this issue has been raised before?

  • I checked and didn't find similar issue

🏢 Have you read the Code of Conduct?

@stnguyen90
Copy link
Contributor

@Atteprojects, thanks for raising this issue! 🙏🏼 I've talked with the team and we've decided to not add the Async suffix to keep things simple and aligned with our other SDKs. The convention says:

This is the convention used in .NET to more easily differentiate synchronous and asynchronous methods.

but since all of our methods are Async and we don't have synchronous methods, the suffix would just add clutter.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants