This project is read-only.

Why not to remove Wrap word from interfaces?

Sep 23, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Really, interfaces are not wraps.

Take IAssemblyWrap.  AssemblyFake does not wraps Assembly (eventually this library exist for such reason - we need fakes).

But AssemblyWrap is. So it more right and shorter to name interface without “wrap” - IAssembly.

Sep 26, 2011 at 3:50 PM

I guess it's too late to change names of interfaces without "wrap".  It will break people who are using existing interfaces.

Sep 26, 2011 at 3:58 PM
Edited Sep 26, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Can you agree that it could be better?

I mean, do  not  you see any bad consequences of naming without WRAP (except that it will break users code)?

Oct 18, 2011 at 3:21 AM

How many people actually use this library and would be negatively affected by an interface-breaking change?  Given the small number of downloads, I would wager to bet that the number isn't large.  I agree that removing 'Wrap' would be best, and this library isn't the .NET BCL where such breaks would be horribly impactful to millions (or even hundreds...) of users;  the total impact would likely be pretty small.  Also, clients don't have to upgrade to the new version of the SystemWrapper library once the change is made;  they can continue to use their current version for as long as they desire to do so.  I don't see much of an argument in favor of keeping the 'Wrap' keyword in the interfaces.

Oct 18, 2011 at 10:41 PM
Edited Oct 18, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Deleted original comment because I tested and I now believe the Interface should not have the word Wrap but the class doing the wrapping should.

Oct 18, 2011 at 11:21 PM

I would like the interfaces in one DLL and the Wrappers in another.

I am going to remove the word Wrap from the interfaces and move interfaces to their own dll.

Oct 19, 2011 at 3:07 AM

rhyous, once this is done, will you ensure the new assemblies are published for download?

Oct 19, 2011 at 9:29 AM
rhyous wrote:

I would like the interfaces in one DLL and the Wrappers in another.

Could you explain why? What is practical reason?

Oct 19, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I don't see any reason to separate SystemWrapper to multiple dlls.  There's no reason to do so.  There's a performance price by separating to multiple projects.