Unnecessary methods in ClientInterface? about fxmlrpc HOT 10 CLOSED

@sagikazarmark very fair criticism of the interface, I wholeheartedly agree. On the options: I feel extending another interface makes most sense, I for now struggle with the name.

from fxmlrpc.

Callable and Configurable interface are probably more generic.

from fxmlrpc.

Further thinking about it: I think that the main interface should be the one containing call and multicall. So it should be ClientInterface. Of course, it is a BC breaking change.

from fxmlrpc.

I would do something like this:

interface CallClientInterface
{
    public function call(string $method, array $arguments): mixed;
}

interface MulticallClientInterface
{
    public function multicall(): MulticallInterface;
}

interface ClientInterface extends CallClientInterface, MulticallClientInterface
{
}

interface HandlerInterface
{
   public function onError(callable $handler): HandlerInterface;
   public function onSuccess(callable $handler): HandlerInterface;
}

interface MulticallInterface extends HandlerInterface
{
    public addCall(string $methodName, array $params = [], callable $onSuccess = null, callable $onErrors = null): MulticallInterface;
    public function execute(): array;
}

What do you think?

from fxmlrpc.

Not sure I understand the reason of having a separate handler interface. Other than that it looks good.

from fxmlrpc.

Yeah, good point. Maybe calling it MulticallBuilderInterface and moving all of them into the same interface is the nicer option. At the end it is a builder alike problem that we are dealing with.

from fxmlrpc.

Yeah, builder sounds good.

from fxmlrpc.

@sagikazarmark can you have a look?

from fxmlrpc.

Looks good.

from fxmlrpc.

Merged into develop

from fxmlrpc.