Skip to content

Conversation

@lawrence-forooghian
Copy link
Collaborator

Make it clear it's an instance attribute of the RealtimeObjects instance, and make its name look like an attribute name (as opposed to a class name).

Make it clear it's an instance attribute of the RealtimeObjects
instance, and make its name look like an attribute name (as opposed to a
class name).
Copy link
Contributor

@VeskeR VeskeR left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not really against the change, I just wonder if we're not restricting SDK implementation freedom too much by telling them exactly what internal attributes they should have.
If we go ahead with this, we might as well update the same for SyncObjectsPool.

@lawrence-forooghian
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm not sure there's a huge difference between saying "it needs to maintain this data structure" and "it needs to have an attribute with this name"; they're both pretty prescriptive and given it's internal people can do what they want anyway. cf e.g. the RTN16f msgSerial property.

If we go ahead with this, we might as well update the same for SyncObjectsPool

Yeah, I was thinking about this; ended up keeping it the same just for consistency with presence

@lawrence-forooghian lawrence-forooghian merged commit 171c8fa into main Jan 23, 2026
2 checks passed
@lawrence-forooghian lawrence-forooghian deleted the clarify-BufferedObjectsOperations-scope branch January 23, 2026 14:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants