Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
docs: Nest SDK #750
docs: Nest SDK #750
Changes from 24 commits
4dd59c4
d837440
cad673a
88bf4f7
04e92b7
f0c9afe
c527bc9
9f1b5f6
3de4dff
de8aa97
87f1b51
34e70d5
1f932e6
3564be5
4035c25
d7801d3
3c33c06
988853b
73547b4
c759819
6d62232
49072d6
8948eda
82ede1e
529178b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should rename this to
OpenFeatureClient
before we remove theexperimental
. I think justFeatureClient
is a bit disjointed, since we have tended to either add the entire "OpenFeature" prefix, or leave it off. I thinkOpenFeatureClient
would be best, because the client inteface is calledClient
so it won't clash, and it's consistent with the equivalent in react (</OpenFeatureProvider>
).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It has been
OpenFeatureClient
before, butOpenFeatureClient
is used for the implementation of theClient
and it is also exported from the Server SDK.We could remove the export of
OpenFeatureClient
from the Web SDK, as no one should use and import this directly anyways I would say. I have seen it several times that this type was used instead ofClient
in projects.If we remove this I would be happy calling the interface
OpenFeatureClient
here. What do you think @toddbaert?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you think @toddbaert?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for the late reply - if we can remove that export, I'm fine with it! It's an improvement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @toddbaert, removing this should be considered a breaking change I would say.
I am not sure how we want to continue on this then. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm, well, if I understand correctly, it would be technically breaking, but I think it could be argued it was a misuse. All our doc recommends using the interface.
If we want to be really strict, we could consider it a break and include it with some others I have in mind in a 2.0.0 (meaning to ask you guys about this soon... there's a small list of breaking improvements I think might be worth considering)...