Support in-memory only metadata dictionary in OpenAPI object model about openapi.net HOT 4 OPEN

@baywet @MaggieKimani1 @darrelmiller Any thoughts on the API shape proposed here? I know the library makes extensive use of interfaces for things like this but it strikes me that using a base class would reduce the implementation overhead.

With regard to what classes will extend OpenApiHasPropertyBag, I'm thinking that we should start with:

• OpenApiDocument
• OpenApIPath
• OpenApiOperation
• OpenApiSchema

from openapi.net.

From what I remember from this code base, having a base class would go against the general design.
The extensive use of interfaces for every facet has been the design here.
I wonder if interface default implementations could help us get the best of both here?

From a scenario perspective I'm not sure I understand what you'd expect OAS.net to do with that property bag besides storing it in memory?

from openapi.net.

I wonder if interface default implementations could help us get the best of both here?

Good idea! An interface with a default property implementation can help fill the gap here. My other conondrum was more bike-sheddy. A lot of the interfaces already defined have end in some sort of ble suffix (Extensible, Serializable, Referenceable). I couldn't think of a good one for this but I'm open to ideas.

From a scenario perspective I'm not sure I understand what you'd expect OAS.net to do with that property bag besides storing it in memory?

Yep, just store it in-memory. It's only there to provide a space for consumers of the object model to do book-keeping on instances within the object model. To elaborate on the ASP.NET Core scenario I described above, we'd use the property pag to store a unique identifier on a given OpenApiOperation instance that acts as a join ID with the ActionDescriptor concept in ASP.NET Core so we can link the OpenApiOperation instance with the framework type associated with it.

from openapi.net.

Thanks for the additional context!

For the name : IPropertyBagStorable? ugly, but explicit

What would you expect to happen with copy constructors? reference copy or deep copy?

from openapi.net.