Figure out how we can introduce rendering of inheritance about modelina

[jonaslagoni]

I don't think we should focus on it now, as it seems like a feature and not a complete rewrite that is required to fully make this work. But good points to remember for the future 👍

[smoya]

I don't think we should focus on it now, as it seems like a feature and not a complete rewrite that is required to fully make this work. But good points to remember for the future 👍

Maybe you want to pop out this from Version 1 milestone?

[jonaslagoni]

Still relevant.

[jonaslagoni]

Still relevant.

[smoya]

Currently, supported inputs don't really support inheritance (we could discuss if JSON Schema somehow does, but it doesn't really do).

However, if we ever support any other language as input (like PHP for example), the generators will need explicit info about both a class extending and/or implementing an interface. See the following examples:

Class Iinheritance:

class Human extends Animal

Implementing an interface:

class Human implements LivingBeing 

But also

class Human extends Animal implements LivingBeing

And also the fact a class can implement several interfaces.

So, does this issue still applies? Do we want to support at model level? is it worth to support right now?

[magicmatatjahu]

@jonaslagoni @smoya I think that my idea should "fix" that problem #628

[jonaslagoni]

I have been thinking a bit about this feature, and there is one huge problem with it, that I dont know if we want to introduce - and that is complexity.

When you write presets and use the class to anything, you MUST remember that it CAN extend from something else, and handle that accordingly. Which is a HUGE effort which needs to be put into Modelina, without much benefit IMO.

I can however see a reason we would want to introduce a preset hook (for now) that enables you to more easily extend from your own custom class, in case you have some use-case where that would suit you. But it does not force preset and generator creators to handle any of the complexity because it's not something thats added to the ConstrainedModel.

The complexity I am referring to is for example in serialize presets that given the following generated models in C#:

public class Person
{
    public string FName { get; set; }
    public string LName { get; set; }

    public Person(string fname, string lname)
    {
        FName = fname;
        LName = lname;
    }
}

public class Student : Person
{
    public Student(Person person, string code)
        : base(person.FName, person.LName)
    {
        this.code = code;
    }
    public Student(Person person)
        : base(person.FName, person.LName)
    {

    }
    public string code { get; set; }
}

Suddenly need to look into the superclass Person when serializing Student, it is very easy to forget this and takes quite a few lines of code to get right.

I dont know, I think we will have to see as the library grows whether this is really needed to be supported in full.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️