Community
Participate
Working Groups
The type EnabledSubmission would be better named ContextSubmission. Clients browsing for context-related APIs generally look for types named *context*. Since the name has no relation to contexts, it's difficult to remember. And lastly, the name is almost oxymoronic. While the API may say "add" and "remove" EnabledSubmissions, clients logically think of this as enabling and disabling the submissions. Just saying "then we disable our EnabledSubmission" makes my head hurt. :) I think it's cleaner to call them ContextSubmissions, because that's what clients are really doing - submitting a context.
as people don't really like the word 'submission', how about this: EnableRequest (and in the commands API, HandleRequest) other options might be (but i prefer the above..): RequestToEnable, RequestToEnableContext. the API methods could change to addEnableRequests(..), etc? lemme know.. p.s. i don't like ContextSubmission or variants, especially because of its equivalent in the commands API: CommandSubmission is confusing, when I'm really requesting a handler for a command. In the future there might need to be other properties of a command (or even context) contributed in this way, so i'd like to leave the names more specific.
Too late, I think. This is API now.
wontfix
