HystrixObservableCommand.run() Method Name

[benjchristensen]

Should this method still be called run(), or something else since it actually does not "run" anything, but just retrieves the Observable<T> that will later be run?

[benjchristensen]

This needs to be decided before the final 1.4.0 release.

[alexwen]

The pattern i've been using for commands which return an Observable (and don't actually run) is to call them, prepareX(). X being the action they are preparing, so in this case, it would be prepareRun()

There may be a better convention for reactive commands though that I am not aware of. :) But I agree it should be renamed to reduce confusion.

[spencergibb]

get() or getObservable()?

[benjchristensen]

Either of those would work for me. So it seems options are:

• get()
• getObservable()
• prepare()
• prepareRun()
• prepareObservable()
• create()

[KoltonAndrus]

observe() or create() would be my vote. The class name implies that you're creating an observable, so I don't think you need to include 'observable' in the method name. Unless you think it removes ambiguity when compared to the other Hystrix Commands.

[mattrjacobs]

What about construct()? Like a constructor, you pass it arguments, but don't expect anything to run until you call other methods.

[benjchristensen]

construct() sounds good too.

[pmotyka]

+1 for construct(), I think this best expresses the behavior of the method.

[benjchristensen]

I like construct() as well.