.Net Foundation Design Reviews, 17 Sep 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: .NET Design Review: GitHub Quick Reviews

Description

00:00:00 - Approved: Add UnderScoreCase support for System.Text.Json https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/39564#issuecomment-532341171
00:09:39 - Needs Work: Add mechanism to handle circular references when serializing https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/41002#issuecomment-532349735
00:32:28 - Approved: HashAlgorithmName.FromOid https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/40558
00:45:49 - Approved: Add RemoveIfValue to ConcurrentDictionary https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/24770#issuecomment-532361229

A

No, we are actually live, I believe unless I up, which is completely within the realm of plausibility, you mean everything.

B

Works as well right now.

A

All right, so this one unless.

B

Called case support resistant, texture Jason, so basically our naming policy we built have a default built before casing, which is past our casing, and we also have a built-in case for camera case, editing, supportive family case a lot of people, especially when you're looking at Josh, given other places before a snake case, and it's a fairly straightforward, API give an addition here, which is that this add a snake is built in support as well.

B

How people have asked for in the past and B is like okay, we just stick with camel and Pascal for now and then once we have 500 open again, we work on this feature, so that's what they proposed and how many members are eager to implement it, which is why I want to get it reviewed now to avoid I'm going to unlock them and has to look at other endpoints like Facebook and Twitter and other endpoints. They all use campus snake casing. So it's it JEP is why Danny becoming a force lad? It went in.

B

It was a heuristic when you transition from clover case to an upper.

C

Case that the under school here's the same heuristic that the F of gamma, kissing, oh yeah, exactly well but camel casing you'll- have to change the first letter. Snake casing.

C

Big case is a lot more complicated transition, Pascal case yeah.

B

So the suggestion interpretation detail was effective following the news of Jason's paradigm, which is iPhone, is I underscore phone and then yes, like words, I.

C

Mean because there's just that I was saying that you know when you don't. The lower number is fine and works well for English, um but then upper to upper like when, when do you, do it from upper topper, always never after.

B

To after 30 yeah, so if you also have this complex up or kissing, or it shows like ID and your l, so it would follow the same pattern. I.

C

Mean, like you know, that's all, oh yeah. The question is: do we think that we can add this and we can have an answer and that when we like is whatever answer we ship with and the first relationships with its that till the end of time.

B

I mean the easy and ever chance formula the easy solution is do or know something service. I think that's what we do for camel casing is that already gives on the call between somebody I'd. That's what we do for our kissing.

B

So the educator, you think you have an answer and that answer appears with no subjects. Well, that's the right approach. I mean we look at compatibility that.

C

Levi's Eric is there anything outside ASCII that has a notion of capital and lowercase letters that we need to include into that's.

D

E

Okay, oh yeah Matt the math half face, but give your name a property like hello, then math based capital, W world, good, easy, Sigma, yeah.

C

All right, so this one will be the Devils in the details and yes,.

F

Oh, maybe going to break out.

C

So some something to keep it so something to keep in mind that Erica's reminded me of is two upper and two lower are not consistent between versions on the framework.

G

So just keep that in mind, then you see a camera, you mean diamond core or donor chorus, Walton and all that for primer. It depends on czar, always.

H

1604, which is 1804 yeah,.

D

H

Casing right, yeah.

C

Right but the the when you ask the question are: is.

D

That answer will never change.

D

What that answer will never change being myself, we carry them.

C

From we carry the information, the transition map is OS dependent. This.

I

C

Uppercase letter is defined by the universal yeah.

J

Carry all that data and dying for its.

C

It's carried in the operating system for the most part, but it's it's defined by the initial standard, like Jeremy said as never changing ever under any circumstance. The only way you could ever get into a situation as if he is undefined characters and your property names, but please don't do that. I.

B

Wasn't doing so certainly the Jamie. Your point is about images and we do in the MIDI. Let's make sure we had all sort of edge cases- you're, not just asking, but not as clever yeah so from from the API against reasonable.

C

I know that the snake case is used colloquially. If anybody else cause, it seems good yeah. If that name is discoverable yeah and then meta thing of people grabbing is public surface area. This is now end on. So napkin has no legal and.

A

I assume the other ones, also not public by the other ones, also an internal right, yes for the staff on these did no public type. Did you can drive for anything like that right, like there's.

G

Any policy is one this one yeah, don't.

A

K

Stay here, yeah.

G

For the phone okay do.

K

We have any other casing: yeah I was gonna tested.

B

B

There's cabacas, but again, there's no reason for us to be empty. We add them is something there is a request for in this massive value. Just pretty much. We add them just like a video in here. So.

C

B

C

A public Pascale case because it's the yes well, the default is match.

E

Fit we assume that your title is exactly.

G

Which seems easy.

G

Oh, this is, let me just verify that.

C

It's obviously only effects mappings to properties recollect if I, if I'm, reading a payload and into like a just a regular jason dictionary, for instance, this isn't reversible, because I assumed invert name is clearly one wife.

C

I, don't know what it does if you have a naming policy and it doesn't find a property, but in shuffling.

C

See réaliser already has a story for that.

E

C

As it only has a convert, a man I assume it's from the dotnet name to the wire name. That means anything that didn't have the forward. Mapping to that name, and just that's it I, don't know there was this this word here and you get to do it.

B

I mean the Sears or options has two concepts. One is for properties where you can use the Navy policy and the other is for extreme key, which you can also use a very possible. So you can set forth a dictionary key policy and property in imposing. What do you configure this son Jesus it as a reference?

B

Oh, you are decent Ornette yeah.

A

The I don't think I can't find anything that he has, that is configurable.

B

Maybe I'm just looking around so no, he has sneaky enemy strategy. So maybe strategy is what you use and you can pass in a naming strategy as a contract resolver, but.

A

Does he have any built-in ones? Yes, Nick is named Charlie.

B

The wrong train.

L

Once you add the ability to go to the right takes.

M

A

You only has camber kids and sneakers as well. Yeah, oh, is.

B

That good, okay.

N

Can't find anything with kebab, she really do.

A

Then get you asked about the finances yeah.

N

A

Lines of code or whatever you do.

B

Yeah, so this is not a healthy fault cameras name.

N

Of hipping otherwise I'll just take.

N

So are you're going.

B

To be doing this work, no, no, no.

N

B

That's why I say that me remember who I was there's two of them for anything eager to do any one of them already has like dozen permutations again him it'd be really busy took what Jason Burnett does so.

C

They should also whoever does the work should also add tests for surrogate pairs, because I'm looking at the code for Jason camel case naming policy yeah.

F

C

It doesn't handle them correctly.

B

Getting markers also has up against yeah.

C

Just making sure they're on a good best case.

C

Invalid things of map surrogates validly map surrogate, there's the hit of transition numbers, weird cases on asking these transition, and there's a lot of stuff here and whatever, whatever chips, which is what its gonna be bro, we got to get it right.

A

All right, next, one and mechanism to the circular references when civilization, utilizing interior.

B

So I'm gonna let David drag this. One is nutrition, reminding this effectively the gist of it is we have we don't have the reference loop handling and reservations, yeah and you know, Jason- has it and customers with it and for Spartacus was the EF and etcetera and laser the wireless feature, and if you find a box for quite a bit.

O

You already know.

O

Well, I think some tomato one of the last things that bin Laden is that which will check that the purpose of the property, the property lynnster is getting from the from the reflection is no doubt it's not deterministic. So the way we should probably if they ignore option, because not always will give this at there in the same result, I don't know which will check that there. You can hear that in order to.

M

Once we take, the I propose: oh yeah, oh then you said oh, come come.

B

They might be useful to explain just the example that you've shown up front and then it's been for. If you have oh okay, then alright. So.

M

O

Okay, so, basically, if you have two objects and- and you have a reference to at some point- the reference goes back to the first object. It would create a look right now. We're just checking against maxstep I went to we reach that yeah the cellulite approach, and why we're trying but I we're trying to achieve knowledge. I like for a mechanism to palliate up front in order to check for the reference loop handling, so you don't have to rely on the Mac step.

O

You just have to rely on things that you already have seen on the object.

P

G

Current behavior is wrong right. Yes, well.

Q

The her behavior is a stack overflow, no.

R

Q

No Cup, okay, we have a maximum.

G

Okay, what is it preferable? I mean like to have thrown by your phone yeah? Yes, yes, that's why you you don't.

C

Want to you don't want to interpret on D serialization by default, anything that goes against the Jason specification, including circular references, because what happens is we've seen cases where somebody will send a an object graph with cycles to a server the server will attempt well, the server will successfully deserialize it. One of the properties might be bad, an exception will get thrown inside of the exception, handling logic they try to write. The object to a log generally involves a called a two string thought to string now stack dives and you crash the process.

O

Also, there's no like a correctable behavior, because I checked many other she devices and languages and, for example, is during a fight. It was not the event and all this kind of stuff it is drugs and any other and languages, for example, one of the libraries from Java. Yes, that you should just pass a property to ignore their sorry, sorry to pass on, naturally to another property. So you can also avoid the serialization of that specific property.

O

What we are trying to achieve with ignore issues sanitize it once and once it's after the first time, you you you, you see, realize that that preference or dialogue get you no longer. You will ignore for the references to.

O

Q

Q

I would say for the exception message: you should add more information, but now here about, like somebody gets this exceptionally tell them like you, have.

B

Another options at the few- all right. Yes, this is the point of before you have an option. You can leave that system. S is better right.

B

E

So I assume under so you said under ignore that's the first time you see.

C

In in the case of something like this add that the list of people we have a list of people that you have both Alice and Krys- are Angela and Bob, but Angela reference, Bob bobs, now not going to show up in the the Outer Ring, because if you do a depth first, you would have seen him as Angela's subordinate, instead of as an individual person.

J

um No actually I mean what was some reference. Wait. No.

K

J

K

J

That's another yeah. If you see a bar wasn't above the 1, therefore ignore yeah. So what you're saying is that if you have so, you see realized right now, Angela, what if you see realizes a list of Angela a bomb? Well.

O

You will get any level of the beginning, because there there are no different stacks right, because you start with any line. Then you go all the way deep and then you find Bob and Bob reference to angular. I mean they're stops and it goes by shoes and goes to the next element. Elise and it.

J

Starts weighting both, so the references are wild that so it always stops you from going to you parent, that's, not the global reference for all cereal yeah yeah. It's just on the parent.

O

I mean they have another option. The percent is just for the global. The entire family I mean for the entire up I'm.

J

Just trying to see, if we're making a thing that anyone can we.

C

As the Jason spec would say, none of this makes any sense yeah. This is family.

J

And relatives like.

C

This is, you are deep off the rails. If you're trying to write this down there, any key scenarios that this enables their.

B

Comment with people yeah that's I, had brought over initially around. This feature was coming from a bunch of was first party and third party customers, energy framework, anyone working with databases.

B

These are so if you're, an employer manager object. If you had a customer order, object that people want this, just as a bow, the reference ignore and your hands Praetorian. So it's like one of the most highly requested feature that we ended up. Chef is act when six thumbs up so yes, our answer is yes. I mean.

C

I understand the people who want reference preserve.

B

Or they're actually really best very cool yeah. That's the glory of this loop. I. Don't want you to throw I, want you to able to just.

C

I feel like I, understand, preserve, preserve as I have a I have a complex graph make the graph materialize on the other side. Ignore seems like a thing that you succeed, but can you reason about the thing that succeeded when you rehydrated on the other side, you've lost it I'm just wondering if that's actually useful.

B

People asked for and initially supported and that's the issue their electors loop, anything, nor is what I'm talking with that is printed on them.

A

The house is different from just suppressing property.

C

The property, if it wasn't good.

A

Okay, so what do you mean so take the employee example right? Why would you not just say the reports to properties, market.

B

Phones here, because you want to see a large reports to for all the other employees, just not the manager, because magic doesn't have his own manager. I mean. Are you.

P

B

C

At the moment, because it could come to this and heavier.

B

C

Like in this scenario, what you really would, if you would, you would want to not realize reports do or manager whatever as the moment that you start see realizing you know, you say realize me and now you get Dan, and so now you get Steve and like and now like you're serializing me why I saw SIA in this rap. That doesn't make sense. So you that's a place where you don't want to walk up. You may want to have your object, know how.

H

To walk up, but you don't want wire format, it seems to me like, if you make it because the so the difference between the two.

A

Is that, as far as earnest and ignore is basically a function of what your data is versus the the one that I proposed the base is just a function of your scheme, all right, your schemer stakes, you can reason about the schema. You just never get reports to. For instance, all you get reports to it all in the first guy, because the second guy below just know I have it like. How do you reason about data like that? Well,.

I

O

Value about not rent versus reserve stuff on ignore I'm, not getting it out there of the schema properties attached to do.

O

I just had an inducing day, well, yeah you're losing data, but given you don't have their metadata properties burning, you don't.

J

Want them either so I understand, I, understand.

C

The reference graph up here but ignore like emo and I, are saying the same things like yeah you, you had a thing and now you send it somewhere and it either has all the data you wanted or because there was a cycle, it's abruptly cut off and now you don't know what you have on is. So that's why I was really asking yeah you people, the people who want ignore understand they want ignore. They want to not have an exception, because maybe what they want. This Christmas the.

B

Bottom is preserved, as a demon was mentioning. Is that modify is change that introduces metadata into your JSON payload? Yes, and that's how, as the people may not want right and I think nor also has side effects. People may like the point.

C

Is that lately so I'm a little confused of theatrical scenario, because if you're trying to preserve the entire object graph and you're trying to do it over Jason, which is a payload format that clearly cannot support it? Why do people not want metadata as part of the payload and then as one like, like dollar, sign ID dollar genre, like you're you're, asking someone to serialize something in a payload format? That clearly is not expect to be able to do the.

A

Only scenario is something like you know: you basically have you basically have a payload that UDC LS did somebody else, control. It's yes and then, on your end, when you actually define your classes, you actually have back pointers or other things that make your life easier, but but it still has it back out that will not work, because no, you have cycles right, but I see the way you leave with this.

A

Is you just mark those back ponies that you, edit, the schemas I, don't want to see or like them, because the payload correct, and that thing that will be the thing, so the only kinase where I can think of you should send my ideas, a lot employers at that point, yeah and then I think it yeah either that or just you just don't see us at all right and I.

A

Think the the only case where what makes sense is, if I do what we said we shouldn't do, which is you see you soon as the schema that you don't actually control you try to butcher it into submission right, in which case it just make it work by saying. Oh yeah give me the top as payload, but I, don't know how you would reason about the end result when you know the first employee.

A

He actually has the whole manager chain, including Satya, and the second report boomer has any of them like it seems like you can never DC license to do something.

K

She also seems worried. The people would be would not want to extra metadata to be added to their data, but would be okay with us. We moving yeah like if they care about the preservation. They probably want extra metadata. They yeah.

A

I think people that would want those ID various thing as people that basically control the scheme on clients or everyone just want to use Jason for whatever reason, and they based use it as a glorified civilization technology right versus the other. One is more like well, there's a service, this service, it has the schema, so I just have to make that scheme ever no matter. What, but yeah I don't ignore, seems.

S

I'd like to really see a strong newspaper, I think that it is.

C

A

I'll, be ok with the rest, though, so, let's say we remove the ignore one. I'll be okay, with the way ID and mages work and he's pulled up with the point is.

L

That as a standard for waiting on as.

A

L

Just from Jason net there is no standard for reference graphs through Jason I.

T

L

My only comment would be the reference handling I could easily see it, meaning there's only ever one reference to this object. It doesn't really call out that it's a circular reference issue.

L

It's not necessarily circles.

C

Yeah, like you could have you know if you have a an array that has the same thing in at twice right like if it's this, if it's reference to the same object and with reference preservation, you would want it to say. The second thing was a reference. Was reference equal to the first thing with don't preserve references, it would flip them both out as objects during deserialization.

P

What happens if an object has a dollar sign rough field and another field as part of the same object.

O

During this, is you serious ocean? Yes, well, on on kids on the net, there are some people, I mean I, found in a stock overflow with you that they that the guy was asking for something to disable. This thing, when his rate is destabilizing and also place, another thing you can it, for example, if your ID is not on the same or on the on the above.

O

On the beginning of the of the object, you also have a an option or relative, so you first read all the all the metadata and then you detail eyes and you.

D

Will soon see a Pascal scroll down? Even can you scroll.

C

Down so that the example output is shown on the screen, this one yeah, so you see where it says: manager, open, brace dollar, sign, rep, : 1. What, if I put at the end of that comma name, : Charlie,.

C

Like what's the behavior that you serializer in cases of this.

O

So you are adding comma property name, yep yeah, it's like an object, but we did name with Lauren. You mean no.

P

R

It says manage anyway, so.

P

The manager object, I did.

S

O

On the screen, yeah, you know looks like suppose.

P

He will be low perfectly.

C

The dollar sign ref wins over every article yeah.

O

I'm truly sorry, sorry, four years on the net, it droughts, if a reference object, which is the one stuff at the ref.

T

O

Another and another property health I mean he can only have their the ref property. So if you, if it finds something something else to that private property and he would row so.

C

If I did clear, dollar sign wrapped twice level, also I'll have you know the reason I'm. Bringing this up in API review is because we should also be considering behaviors and during API review, and it is like the D serializer behavior has to be really well defined. What it sees something like this yeah I would definitely need opt in to yeah. Oh, it absolutely has to be often like. Unquestionably, deserialize should not affect yeah. Oh yeah, it is a can't, execute a holder. Have this one yeah.

B

He don't know about need before to give virginia's. Well don't see that d sense, but.

E

Like I was looking so it's jason serializer options.

O

We will also need to add an option to opt in for days on diseases.

C

Yeah I have I have context on that tip.

T

Jane James.

C

Does not have security people reviewing the code, but.

B

I would agree with that that all of this behavior should be obtainable time as Andy's. You guys right.

C

The reason the reason something like this can't be often by default is because say that say that you modify Angela to say: Angela's manager is Angela, so Angela manager rough one. Now the problem is to submit that to the server the server tries, displaying the the organizational hierarchy of Angela. The server now gets a Stack Overflow exception in the process. I'm like we can't have stuff like this on by default.

U

What happens if we try to diss your lies and agent like this, but the this utilized method we've not opted into the option. Presumably dollar sign rental or something I. Do stability, so it'll.

C

Be wherever you know, but you know whenever you handled for the properties or values from the payload, that don't map to properties on your time, yeah yeah. So if you didn't put an overflow bucket, it just drops it dude. We did put an overflow bucket, it says: I, don't know. There's this thing called dollar ID here.

D

Just across the field.

Q

During their mr. realization, if you got reference numbers that is not he serialize them, does that mean sterilization and I mean you've ended. This I mean, like you know, you have reference 100, which is not be civilized. Yet oh se-hoon.

O

You hit that mess. That's why the option we have exist to first check what reference do you have, so you mean, for example, if you have on at least reference ID. Well, sorry reference to it. Yes, sir numbers 22 and then you have the ID 1. You know and we in the ID 1 your yes, you are the finding the ID, but you you are ready. First, the ID yeah that thing's handled by their I have property, but that we we didn't want to add that option, because no one is asking for.

J

Oh yeah I won't tell you the O's again so then the other question, even if you.

C

Had read ahead, what happens if you say, I am records 100 and there is no record ah I see.

B

Book ahead, you don't find any difference. Yes, we did. We decided to score the pollen down not until we need a head until someone X machine transport, so.

Q

I think on this one I would say is that everybody using this is going to use this.

C

I think this needs like a feature spec well not before any code looks like needed aspect need to talk about every kind of error. Every kind of thing you can see in but I think that ignore is kinda, dumb I. Don't think anybody.

H

But this needs a lot of thought and to copy. Jing's is not like.

K

A bunch of like this one had a bunch of thumbs up before they're, like a lot of specific requests. Only for ignore, or was it just we need, we need to handle.

B

K

The person who asked for.

B

It the ask for ignore and that's what comes out, but the scenarios I know of Armenia Pitzer yeah.

T

B

Apologies, even for you, guys of dotnet like a four-day gathering data I, don't know which enum values use most often.

B

And we certainly copy the scenario of magic, though your customer order, where you want ignore but I, don't know how real that scenarios and.

K

Presumably, whatever is decided here should also take part them to do right upon.

K

You could have cycles in there as well, so whatever the serializer does for cycles.

F

Does the writeable don't allow you to post in entire objects.

C

In or just so you can say.

K

Json object my object and then add a property that has by itself yeah. You can add it to itself Canary too thick space.

T

K

It yeah, you can then do to jason string.

K

Oh everybody yourself as the that's what everyone's heard. Whatever we do here, we should do the same, which I think about doing the same thing and by.

C

The book maybe or the answer is, if you want this, you don't call Jason, know that right all Jason's, they realize they're with their.

L

References yeah.

C

L

Think we need to understand the use cases. Also primarily I would expect this to come up when you're just serializing a random object graph, and it may be far less frequent when you're using the Dom is with the Dom. You actually have to kind of think about what you're putting into it right, but I mean I, guess this would.

C

Affect Dom parse, it may mean the preference cycle trigger reference reference, rehydrate Iran on parse or again that it's okay yeah. So this is way more complicated than the Navy Yard and.

F

So like what are we doing to move a shoe them to? The issue needs to go back for API needs back, okay,.

B

We don't have what barriers work, I, guess, I! Guess that means or do it my way.

G

B

Pushback that we have is, they expect a sorry, that's semantically behavior at what point do we change the API itself, I? Think.

C

That I think before you can say that you actually know what the API that you want to look like is we need to have the spec that defines what behaviors you so I think that there's a cycle right now you have us back from the spec. We've said there a lot of where the Eggers would like to know the one you have written down, and then we can talk about the second.

A

But you can just really separate if you have no recommendation all the time right, like is there's implied behavior, and this implied support contracts that come from what API service you're promising. Once.

C

You start talking about what are all the fail modes: unbound references references with additional properties to find forward. Look ahead like all these making, they influence the feature, totality API, and then you can cut feature once you define what the whole thing should look like. But if we start with just a simple thing, then it may end up worse over time. Yeah.

A

I think it's, the kind of the officer problem was doing language design, but you can't have the syntax before you have the behavior right, like I, think once we had the behavior, the syntax should be easy to make a the API should be really straightforward, but we're not really unblocking anybody very improving API. So we don't know what the baby is when.

T

It comes, it doesn't have anybody from prototype me yeah, it's not gonna. It feel safe, yeah things.

B

T

Take place before him.

B

All right, one thing I would want to get clarity on, is there's question around ignore or do we need it?

B

Whether or not people are using a mercenary whether passing data have cycles in the wire and then expected it's just how one person, one group of people use this Jason stuff. If news of Jason has this usage and people are using it a lot and their question for it, how do we say? No, you need to copy the competition air. You know because the question.

C

Is can you can? Can you or you explain to me when I want it when it makes sense and why I would use it? Because if not, you can't write documentation at a sample other than here's a convoluted thing we came up with so without actually understanding library, adding something we shouldn't add it. So that's why I don't care? Who has the concrete request, but like I, want a very specific. This is why this makes sense yeah, because everything I can think of is this.

C

Is data loss that you can't undergo you can't reason and they've.

B

Had that people in the wild are using it and they don't mind, really laws, it's not evidence understand us that we should add it again, because.

C

The litter exists somewhere doesn't mean we should copy, like I would like to understand the value of the feature and the value that people get out of it before we start talking about.

A

Having weight I, don't think we have a goal to make porting from done on Jason dotnet to assist in text up Jason viable for everybody. Right like the goal is that we have scenario parity, but we will not have necessarily identical behavior in all cases, either right, but I think the question is: if an existing implementation has will be considered, ill-defined behavior, then you can't really match that anyways, even if we, even if we had ignored that we have been no signing up to have the exact same corner case, behavior Jason.

A

About that hand, I would say no and but I think that this is almost impossible. If the problem is well, you just randomly drop some stuff on the floor in order to make it fits a certain brand right and then becomes, but what was the order in which Jason Lynette reverse the object grab, maybe towards the other way right or suddenly we make different decisions where we lost the data. I didn't know. People complain again that.

C

First versus Bret first would completely change what your output looks like yeah, so the ignore essentially ignore paints us into a corner, and we can't have anything reference if you do read ahead with Brett birth service and it works.

C

Oh and and then ideally on this one, and we find the Cory's question: can we find anyone other than James who's done this and is there? Is there anything that looks like a standard? I mean I? Read that there's anything yeah, that's a thing that I would like to see in the in the spec light of that. This is the only thing that does this, so it is with the factors as opposed before, if there's three different competing standards, because this is the Internet there have to be at least three then I'd like.

S

It's 2.5 on his half-baked, well they're. All.

B

A

Yeah so I mean then the question becomes a menu. We can know one second after design, if there's only two modes. Let me have them special, that's enum, so we can at least add you know more later on. If you really want to and I think that would be fine, but I think somebody would have to define what that actually means in a way that is well-defined and not randomly dropping data on the floor or.

S

If it's just a boolean yeah, he was object. References when you kind of corner yourself.

A

Your forgiveness all right, so then we have 30 minutes left, so we can still look at something I just wanted. Last.

I

Thing David any other questions that you want to ask for parity, or are you unlock them? What do you do? Well, nobody familiar with basic mean by every respect, but I would never written one.

F

Something basically: what what are the scenarios that you want to enable here like? How do you envision the the usage.

D

Being what kinds of outputs do you expect on the wire during D serialization? If you see this input.

C

What do you expect the object graph to look like if you see this input? What do you expect the object graph to look like what cases do you want to detect as failure? How do you report failure exceptions, no.

F

Every exception every no case have really.

A

F

Other work of you to get something.

A

But now I think.

F

A

Was known to similar, what do you have here, some sample code and then also what like in the design section? Basically, what corner cases do you have and then wholly on report errors like it's? It's pretty much, maybe a document slightly larger than that, but not by much. It's just more focused on the behavior other than me. Actually, it's.

C

Not actually as bad as we like a negative.

A

It's only 65 pages, I mean it's like you know at most two weekends I've written a 65 page dr. Foreman I mean. Are you surprised.

F

H

Apparently I read it: I did 300 page.

V

V

D

V

Pretending then, how about four? Oh five, five, eight.

F

Easy you say: yeah, okay, 405, 405,.

C

5 8, four or five.

D

Oh I prove this. Oh yes,.

E

E

E

um Yeah so the.

C

Order, Fogg Rafi, there's much things called object, identifiers. Mostly they look like a dotted series of numbers. Some of them represent hash algorithms.

C

Inside our code we have a bunch of switch statements that say: switch off this dotted decimal turn into algorithm name, whatever Bevin's written that a bunch of his own code, and he asked why? Isn't it just public API? That's a really good question, so uh it should be. We do have a rich type that represents. Oh, it's called Owen, but it's in the it's currently in an assembly that depends on this assembly and it's a terrible type, because everyone thinks it's immutable, but it's actually mutable so I, don't like actually using it for anything.

C

So that's why this just yeah. We can also say that it can take riedel's, better trouble.

Q

Well, this is just a converter from a wood.

E

Tools they can it converts a dotted decimal string into a.

C

Semi human readable string, yeah, so 11.3 no 1.28 60 died. It's the atom at this. At this point, I need to look it up in a table, become shell one. Yes, so hash algorithm name. You can actually pass into other api's such as RSA incorrect. For instance, yeah I see we started with Mo Kio and the O in value, and we hadn't dropped it because of about 300 grams yeah, and oh it's just there Jeremy, so not really a good type. We shouldn't really encourage its use, yeah or.

F

Maybe in five I'll take breaking changes and you guys it doesn't pick us. Oh it don't you try to try from. Oh it tastes, not right what I mean is like. Why do we need to have a class or struck so hash algorithm.

C

Name is a strongly type string aka. It gives you an accelerator for things that are that are well defined in the api's of things they.

A

See, there's enum then make this drink. You.

C

Know it's for the Maduro.

A

C

Are public static properties on it that literally represent sha-1 sha-256 off fog development, so.

G

C

Are there are way too many different ways to represent the concept to do in sha-1? So we've said this is the one that we we it's essentially pre-published constants then.

T

Would back from voyage return only a window? Yeah, yes, don't know when no one.

C

Strings like if your massive I think that's not a no it'll return false. If you pass in the Oh, would representing RSA it'll return false cuz, that's not a hash out growth, so the case where it will return true is the six things that we know about the case. Where will return? False is every other case. Sorry.

A

You said earlier, like I share with them is in a different name. That special name is in a different assembly than Oh ed. Yes, then, the type named Owen yes. So what would happen that, if we add over to the APS, it was a pleasure ever than name? If so, that's.

C

A

That's not part of the proposal you talk down to it. This.

C

Comes instead of them yeah you you'd have a type forward over two different or some way, or something like that I see, and since the thing that you would pass here is I would not value.

C

It's called Owen Valley bill.

A

And any reason we wouldn't expose the api's, on all words with basically a Hatcher goes and I out of it. As from.

C

Olya could be a hash algorithm. I mean like always, basically a quit yeah. Think of it like a quit like it's, it can represent literally anything in the world, so hanging everything off of. Oh, it would pollute to be Owen type if we plus.

G

C

If you have the string, which is what most people are going to have anyway, why would you hydrate the oh it object and then ask it: what kind of like very few people actually have a what object? Their kids are terrible.

F

But you have this string made in the represents the. Why do you know yeah.

J

F

You probably read it from confession, or something like that or sir.

C

Yeah, so this is just taking a thing that we have in probably 14 different places as we haven't made. A comment include for it and then just put in I'm.

T

Sure the parameter name, we name the value for hat under the name, Oh.

P

Aren't I would generally the result of a try from is called value generally as he or a tried. Yet try creates yeah.

T

Right now, yeah in.

C

Bed- and we show now how we really main hatch overrun day.

B

You know it I mean check instructor for house under the name. Take the name and they'll said the name property. So that's also suggest a name.

N

My name they did to me it's all the time hey I was.

R

Just trying to be consistent.

N

With the rest of you have yeah.

G

You're you're, right, though like it is, it is probably a bit confusing, but it doesn't actually matter what.

N

We call boys, usually I, would value. We.

F

Don't say just old and frequently.

E

I say Oh way back because you.

C

Know would know the system security photography. Oh it type allows you to work both from would numeric dotted decimal value, which is the thing that everybody really talks about, and then it also lets you use the windows friendly name, that's associated with it, and so in all the API is that I've ever proposed the take that that a decimal we call it old value to be very clear. We are not going to try friendly neighbor, accessible.

H

Acting these are going and.

C

A

Then should the API be called from motivator than or to be called for, Moy from oh.

C

It because the the canonical, the canonical industry term or the string pattern, a dot, B dot, C da-da-da-da-da is oh it. So, yes, we have a no attempt that is the the colors of the API will know what to custom.

G

All right, I think we spent.

N

Kevin Jones, yes, yeah can't.

E

You tell be for Kevin I've.

A

Seen it before that make jokes about, because these VCS had version control software and is the Indiana Jones aversion horses all.

V

Right so we have womanís.

F

Only took nine minutes, it's possible.

F

Has this one even like reached consensus? Well, it's mark ready for view. Somebody clearly mapped it. Isn't it isn't it doesn't? This API already exist hanging off of my dictionary. It.

L

Does this issue is primarily about discoverability I was losing it I see this question pop up on Stack Overflow, with some frequency. Okay, I collected a bit of searches, just I searched and those were the results on the first page of Stack Overflow that they were plenty more so.

L

Primarily yeah the benefit is discoverability. There are a couple cons. It's it's not safe. To use it's easy to misuse. I should say we have this other method, try update, which is just as easy to misuse. So there's that one doesn't completely be away.

R

L

L

And also the naming because we have removed in one case and try update in another, there's really no great way to name this method that I could think of. So it's, but that's a minor thing, I think so.

A

This is the idea to atomically remove the key if it's currently set to particular video. Yes, exactly.

W

The biggest questions here also are early. We have exclusively rented API for my collection. We remove a game developer which to me it makes the most sense we approve this API is we have another, try remove, which only thing all your a believe, the key which it takes and then Eve on the naming is confusing. It's when you accept when you come and Eve you usually have a Freddie game, Thank You Homer right, remove it Eve the predicates.

C

For the condition dad I agree with Santi if we want to have this is a public method. I think it should just be an overload of try, remove and either take a Tiki and a t-value or take a key value pair of Tiki TIA all right. So the Tiki + t-value means that we would then have an overload, which varies on graph, which violates guidelines. But if we add the the out of what the existing value was, then that would solve. That is. Try, remove and try to remove with an extra parameter, because so what.

J

Is this artisan violated.

C

Whereas it's violated like islands, we have a guideline that specifically says, do not overload where the only difference between two methods is. One is ref and one is not it's not reference out. That's right.

R

L

I mean I think key value pair is a good way to disambiguate it. The only kind of oddity there's that try try, update, does not take a key value pair.

L

So it's not, but it's not a tuple it, but I. Don't think. That's.

C

Again, I think this is a molarity with try update. Is there try update your specifically passing in the key, the new key and the old key and in fact the ordering nerves compare exchange so there's not even the opportunity for them to be.

L

Tri-State you say sign this new value is the existing value? Is this? Yes, you don't say it's essentially the same operation. It's not that I'm. It's you're.

C

Not saying replace this key value pair with this value, saying replace this value with this.

L

I don't know it's I could see your perspective. It's it just doesn't seem like leading from having two ideas that are so similar. We will give you that they're not identical, but they're similar enough, that having a value pair on one and not on the other, just seems kind of strange. The reason my perspective, you don't you can't.

C

Use them in the same scenarios, they are for different purposes. One of them is removing something, but a key value pair and its entirety. One of them is replacing a value that there's no reason for like. If you were to define, try update with a key value pair, it would look I, don't even know what a little I guess it would take to key value pairs where the key and both had to be identical.

C

W

Agree with the statement that, where the key value pair you're saying we remove this key value pair and when you iterate on atoms on the dictionary, you usually get a value for anything. This is the key for this value yeah and when you are updating you're saying on this key, put these new value you're not saying update, update this whole key bumper me to something in the pool yeah.

A

But logically, I think I'm with Korea more in the sense that what you do really is you give a key and the comparison value right. So basically, what you are, what you're talking about is a version key right. You say you know, update this key, that it currently has this value and you either remove that entry or you added or you set it to a new value wise. It's basically, a form of a version key really well, both like I may try after base it says: here's.

A

The key is a comparison value which happens to be the third argument and here's the new value, which basis says, set this key to this new value. If it currently has the other video right so basically identifying the keys.

A

Basically, it's kind of a of a versioned key right, because you basically use the value, as you know, as the as the words met it currently has, and so in that sense, remove and update are the same operation and from the point of view that or you're identifying the key by the same mechanism. I'd verify its its key and its current value, and that's the thing with the similarity is you're.

C

You're, not, though, what.

A

Do you mean you know I.

C

Mean you're, basically in the case of update you're, basically saying I'm. This key yeah.

N

C

It except out now, if it doesn't exist, you don't pay attention to the values it does exist. The key is sitting there. It has a slot associated with it. We're now no longer going to touch the key now, just looking at the value, slaw yep, and then we can be say: does this value nothing to do with the key anymore doesn't match this other value? If yes place it, if no, no, with try, remove you're saying find this pair in the dictionary and remove it if it exists.

L

So, essentially, with treasure move you're, also operating on the key itself, not just value.

B

But I've been finding the key value pair you're still taking them together. I see that as the same as tryout date, and you have key he matches and in value matches. And then you do some operation on there and there's update or you move or.

P

With update you're, not replacing oh okay,.

S

L

And in in triad, we don't take a key value pair, even though we're inserting the key rate.

L

Currently, we have a lot of key value pair methods, but they're all have explicitly implemented interfaces. There's nothing on the you know, public surface of concurrent dictionary.

C

For what it's worth Steve, the actual guidance is: do not use rep or out modifiers to overload members.

D

K

There are uneven things you sham, it's known there.

C

Was part of the proposal that said what, if you used a predicate instead of passing in the value that was me and then CEO.

L

C

That's bad because you have to do it inside the lock.

O

C

A subtlety here we're always going to be executing some potentially user-supplied code inside the lock. Yes,.

Q

C

It's an elegant, it's obviously it's the delegate, but not a delegate. There is whatever the implicit comparer is the other. Whatever equality compare of TDOT default gives you back, and so you know it's still you're still potentially executing arbitrary code. The difference is, in one case, it's very explicitly arbitrary code passed at the call site that could reference dictionary itself by closure.

U

C

It's the case of be built in I. Compare there's almost no chance that I equatable implementation on the type reference to that specific dictionary instance right.

E

C

So I think that, like a the reasonable.

E

You know like, given that it could be using any arbitrary comparison and the existing try remove, tells.

C

You this is what I found for this key I think it makes sense to just say that this is try, remove the key key value, comparison out value existing value, and now we don't have what's the over, like you can explain why the overloads different. We don't need the suffix because we're not overloading on a reduced signature, and we don't need to keep on you. There we're.

L

Sorry I didn't understand what signature.

C

L

Have so LD enables me to value.

C

Out to value to value is what it currently contains.

E

C

There that we removed pretty well what if you can say, evil like you've, not seen that depends on what your what quality compared you gave the concurrent dictionary anything could be said for kids. Well, it's it's equality, compare of T value default in all cases, because it's T value and all T key, all right, so it'll, so it'll just be reference or value on me, okay, nevermind! So it's I guess so what it would be is the key value out to key. This is the key that matched.

C

He would need that because the input argument should.

D

Be sufficient the.

C

Only thing I could imagine that you would need an out T value for is I, didn't remove it, because here's the T value that was already there in case you needed those informations, but yeah, and now you have that it's an anti try and yeah.

R

W

But what if we just use the luckily.

C

I mean that exhibit you just cast it.

L

But how to make it, you know, English shows: what did you lose? Your first existing.

W

Method, that's the other method ease follows a try pattern well,.

L

W

That's where he has an out parameter. It's this one he's not gonna have a parameter. We should be able to use them, remove one that returns a move which we follow up course. All the other flats. You decided.

C

Yeah so make it important.

F

C

I I struggled with that I agree with you, Santi. On the one hand, on the other hand, we've taken some liberties with try in in concurrent dictionary and some of the other concurrent collection types in general, like concurrent dictionary, doesn't expose ad. It exposes triad, there's no out now baby we've taken too many liberties, but we were trying to drive home a point in the design that can't trust from moment to moment anything about the state and we wanted to avoid people doing things like, if not contains key, add yeah I mean I. I.

C

Think that you know. If we were talking about the span and memory guidelines, Chris not pointed out fit, we should probably take what we currently call the tryparse pattern and make it the try pattern. I think triad actually hits that as the I return false. Instead of throwing I'm sorry, this already exists. So I I think that we found the correct spirit of the try pattern in concurrent dictionary and that tryparse is a subset of the try pattern.

C

So I don't think that we don't used it really I think we just found that it needed to have been generalized than you did, and so from that perspective, all the mutating members that are publicly exposed on current dictionary are tries and it feels like we'd be setting ourselves up for inconsistency that might appear to be meaningful and if it would, if it was interpreted to be meaningful, that would be a problem.

C

So so, what's like? Can we violate the guideline and say I remove takes a key and it's he value in addition to an overall that takes a key in an outtie value, I.

D

A

V

Shall bid to do.

C

That you can try it.

V

C

You can't overload one of them ref in the other one yeah, but you should be able to overload them. I was a basin referent, I I think it's one of those that, while c-sharp allows you to understand the call on this that not all that madness is that really all CLR language makes.

H

Them in the callable I know.

C

I think I agree as well that it's potentially I mean I, know I suggested it, but it's also potentially a bit of failure in that you might accidentally out when you didn't mean to or not use it when you meant to yeah, maybe we'll get meaningfully differently right.

J

C

It's there the same name but they're they're, not actually at that point, they're they're, very different, so try remove key value pair that try reboot key value pair seems to be the least controversial do and then it's just a question of. Do we actually want it and I don't have a strong opinion for it. My primary my primary objection to the issue as it was written up was just I've. Seen too many times the exact pattern that was used to motivate.

T

C

In and in most of the cases where I saw it, it was fundamentally wrong and it's one thing if you have to cast to I dictionary, to use the functionality, because 99% of the time that you're casting to a dictionary sumers, are then not relying on the concurrent nature of it, and so their own usage of it is not going to be driven by an expecting from all to the next necessarily be consistent.

C

But and then there's like the 1%, where people actually cast that in order to get the functionality- and you know- okay, it could be falling into the pit of failure, then as well, but it's just not like right in their face. I agree. The functionality is certainly important.

C

Certain cases I just want to make sure we're not doing more harm than good and to be clear, the example the current example, that shown is fine, where it's enquiry updated it to use like an integer pens, breath counting a ref count value where the T value is just an int. The previous example that was potentially problematic had the T value being some type that had a count property on it, and the example was basically, if dictionary contains, if dictionary after I get value and the value equals zero I, which.

L

Is very easy to get wrong, which is very tricky to get wrong. That's.

C

Where I chose the predicate and then Steve said you know.

A

Alright, so I only have to run because I need to be at 12:30 another building. So what's the decision? Yes, no or to be talked about more later, I would keep all your.

S

C

I think it's: if we're adding it the signatures, try to remove a value pair. The question is, could we add it or not and I don't know that we have an answer to that one. Yet that's not a that's a Steve architect, question more than a discrimination I mean I.

D

I would say, we should add it a I, don't know the documentation needs to be like stellar.

W

So the example that I do not use it like these. Do.

L

Not use this yeah for the remove method and try update, don't even mention it either. So it's probably overhaul.

A

All right I have to clean up the corner, because I really have to leave I. Think.

Q