Skip to content
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

Migrate Kotlin Extensions to this library #903

Open
arriolac opened this issue Jun 25, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

Migrate Kotlin Extensions to this library #903

arriolac opened this issue Jun 25, 2021 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Comments

@arriolac
Copy link
Contributor

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Upon integration of #898, it is no longer necessary to have a separate libraries (maps-utils-ktx and maps-utils-v3-ktx) for Kotlin idiomatic usage of this utility library.

Describe the solution you'd like
Extension functions within maps-utils-ktx, and further extension development, should exist within this library. To complete this task, I propose the following:

(1) Move extension functions within maps-ktx into a new package ("com.google.maps.android.ktx") within the library module.
(2) Add future extension functions within this package. For example, Flow extensions can exist within here.

As a side effect of this, maps-utils-ktx and maps-utils-v3-ktx should be updated to remove contained extensions effectively the util KTX libs empty artifacts that depend on the version of maps-utils containing Kotlin extensions. Lint warnings should also be created as to encourage developers to use maps-utils directly.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Continue Kotlin extension development in the KTX libraries.

Additional context
N/A

@arriolac arriolac added the type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design. label Jun 25, 2021
@arriolac arriolac self-assigned this Jun 25, 2021
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jan 3, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. Please comment here if it is still valid so that we can reprioritize. Thank you!

@stale stale bot added the stale label Jan 3, 2022
@arriolac
Copy link
Contributor Author

arriolac commented Jan 4, 2022

Still valid

@stale stale bot removed the stale label Jan 4, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 12, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. Please comment here if it is still valid so that we can reprioritize. Thank you!

@stale stale bot added the stale label Jun 12, 2022
@barbeau barbeau removed the stale label Jun 12, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Nov 2, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. Please comment here if it is still valid so that we can reprioritize. Thank you!

@stale stale bot added the stale label Nov 2, 2022
@stale stale bot removed the stale label Jan 24, 2023
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 18, 2023

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. Please comment here if it is still valid so that we can reprioritize. Thank you!

@stale stale bot added the stale label Jun 18, 2023
@kikoso kikoso removed the stale label Aug 10, 2023
@kikoso kikoso self-assigned this Aug 10, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants