GetHistoricalTrades callback parameter about exchangesharp HOT 8 CLOSED

Yeah, I noticed all the yields are gone from the IEnumerable return types. Shame that. As you know, I am updating an ExchangeSharp fork with many additional Exchanges. This latest release requires a lot of reworking the code because the public interface changed on every function. Though I know why these changes were made (better async functionality), it’s future compatibility I’m concerned about (and chasing changes in the Interface). That’s the reason for my question regarding the GetHistoricalTrades function. Every function that returns a IEnumerable *could* support a callback. Right now, GetHistoricalTrades is the only one. Will this change? Will there be more public functions that support it. And if so, would not a subscription (like the sockets) be a better alternative to altering the public parameters… if for no other reason than backward compatibility? From: Jeff Johnson ***@***.*** Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 12:03 PM To: jjxtra/ExchangeSharp ***@***.***> Cc: BobDeCuir ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.*** > Subject: Re: [jjxtra/ExchangeSharp] GetHistoricalTrades callback parameter (#97) Until async iterators make it into c# this is the best we can do for this long running operation. On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:25 AM BobDeCuir ***@***.*** ***@***.***> > wrote: > The GetHistoricalTrades API is the only function that includes a callback > parameter. Is this intentional, or an oversight? The ability to update in a > loop should be at the implementation level, not API. Will other public > functions support this type of callback in the future (i.e. GetOrderBook, > GetOpenOrders, etc.)? > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#97>, or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe- auth/ABNoGKMEATWdfE9GgBfGP5j_Ztx_H53-ks5tqdOqgaJpZM4TdYCW> > . > -- Jeff Johnson CEO / CTO, Digital Ruby, LLC — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < #97 (comment)> , or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe- auth/AI7weuFjlLFUynHrl-HA_NCmqBZ6GzTfks5tqga-gaJpZM4TdYCW> . < https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AI7wehgu-bUHBkCM-6rBziLNcP_ DuzYnks5tqga-gaJpZM4TdYCW.gif> — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#97 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABNoGJA7SwmXFcpyc9u23cwAMp7eVig7ks5tqgwMgaJpZM4TdYCW> .

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Jeff Johnson ***@***.***> wrote: GetHistoricalTrades is the only function that needs it due to a potential infinite amount of return values. No plans for the rest to ever use callbacks. -- Jeff On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:25 AM, BobDeCuir ***@***.***> wrote: > Yeah, I noticed all the yields are gone from the IEnumerable return > types. Shame that. > > > > As you know, I am updating an ExchangeSharp fork with many additional > Exchanges. This latest release requires a lot of reworking the code because > the public interface changed on every function. > > Though I know why these changes were made (better async functionality), > it’s future compatibility I’m concerned about (and chasing changes in the > Interface). That’s the reason for my question regarding the > GetHistoricalTrades function. Every function that returns a IEnumerable > *could* support a callback. Right now, GetHistoricalTrades is the only one. > Will this change? Will there be more public functions that support it. And > if so, would not a subscription (like the sockets) be a better alternative > to altering the public parameters… if for no other reason than backward > compatibility? > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jeff Johnson ***@***.*** > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 12:03 PM > To: jjxtra/ExchangeSharp ***@***.***> > Cc: BobDeCuir ***@***.***>; Author < > ***@***.***> > Subject: Re: [jjxtra/ExchangeSharp] GetHistoricalTrades callback > parameter (#97) > > > > Until async iterators make it into c# this is the best we can do for this > long running operation. > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:25 AM BobDeCuir ***@***.*** > ***@***.***> > wrote: > > > The GetHistoricalTrades API is the only function that includes a > callback > > parameter. Is this intentional, or an oversight? The ability to update > in a > > loop should be at the implementation level, not API. Will other public > > functions support this type of callback in the future (i.e. > GetOrderBook, > > GetOpenOrders, etc.)? > > > > — > > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > > <#97>, or mute the thread > > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ > ABNoGKMEATWdfE9GgBfGP5j_Ztx_H53-ks5tqdOqgaJpZM4TdYCW> > > . > > > -- > Jeff Johnson > CEO / CTO, Digital Ruby, LLC > > > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < > #97 (comment)> > , or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ > AI7weuFjlLFUynHrl-HA_NCmqBZ6GzTfks5tqga-gaJpZM4TdYCW> . < > https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AI7wehgu-bUHBkCM- > 6rBziLNcP_DuzYnks5tqga-gaJpZM4TdYCW.gif> > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#97 (comment)>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABNoGJA7SwmXFcpyc9u23cwAMp7eVig7ks5tqgwMgaJpZM4TdYCW> > . >

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:09 AM, BobDeCuir ***@***.***> wrote: LOL. Ok, Jeff. I'll just override the protected On methods... which is EVERY function in the Exchange API. I'll take your word that no other functions will need a callback, though the GetCandles might also return a truckload. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#97 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABNoGJlFrpvpjpCixoquDY3H-8Ofzz4Wks5tqhZWgaJpZM4TdYCW> .

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:14 AM, BobDeCuir ***@***.***> wrote: Every exchange I've implemented so far has both public and private functions finished (all of them). Every exchange that supports socket updates as well. No worries, it'll be done by next week and I'll make a pull request then. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#97 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABNoGNIDu-jkTSS7oC-HVuA7grfzoJ7qks5tqheQgaJpZM4TdYCW> .