-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 331
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
[In progress]PokeGOAPI-Java version 2.0 Providers Framework rewrite #875
Comments
Couldn't you just create another branch than trying to mess up API v1? |
He didn't do anything but sending a PR so we will start working on a better API. |
Well ok. Looks like there's a lot of business going on in the background. I did not know that there is something like a management behind this API. |
Then, yes, there is kind of a management behind this API. All we need to do now is to start working to built it by what he committed... |
Looks almost like an invite to contribute. To be honest I am happy to be able to keep my pieces together. I have to check what I am able to do. |
@clangdev As @RebliNk17 said, there are a lot of issues with the API right now, specially when it comes to maintainability. And the fact that a lot of it is dependent on all the other parts of the code. So this means that say if you are only a scanner, you would have inventory for the account loaded up. That took memory. So the goal of this is to increase maintainability by strictly saying this is how each part will be able to communicate, along with allowing quicker changes due to less dependencies all over the place. Also it gives more flexibility. For instance, it would be easier for a library user if they are using Android, to just implement their own PokemonGoClient so that it handles requests and responses the way they want it to instead of being forced to handle the requests and responses as defined by the API. I know when I was creating my own scanner on Android, I had to fork the API and change quite a few things to get the API to behave the way I needed it to behave on Android without adding additional bloat that wasn't needed due to how the library was set up. Specially with the async requests (I just ended up removing them completely). Overall, we shouldn't be changing how the underlying system works, but more how users would interact with the underlying system and how the underlying system interacts with other parts of the system. So we are kinda of changing the behavior of library, while not touching the function. |
@s7092910 How did you end up getting it to work on Android? |
Description:
This is a tracker of what needs to be done and what is done and what is being worked on in Pull Request #873. Also this can be used to suggest changes to the framework while it is being worked on.
Service Provider Interfaces
This includes the delegate and the spi for the delegate along with any other interfaces/classes needed for the spi.
Implementation
The implementation of the API and the SPIs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: