ExecuteRequestAsync as public

[RomanSoloweow]

Continue discussion #1952
Api was changed, it's nice. But it still difficult to implement generic logic for all requests.
If we check implementation for ExecuteAsync and DownloadStreamAsync methods, they have common part: ExecuteRequestAsync.
Why don't you want to make this method public? This will allow library developers to write more versatile and more enjoyable code.

[RomanSoloweow]

@alexeyzimarev any news?

[alexeyzimarev]

I have no issue with that but it would mean the function will become a part of the interface, which will introduce breaking changes for everyone who use the interface.

[RomanSoloweow]

Which interface you mean?

[RomanSoloweow]

I think it's can be not included in interface. Only as part of RestClient object

[rassilon]

There is RestRequest.OnAfterRequest for the brave..

[alexeyzimarev]

@rassilon I think the idea here to enable creating extensions that would use ExecuteRequestAsync. However, it will require exposing the internal HttpResponse type as public. I don't really see a problem doing that.

One option is to make ExecuteRequestAsync the only function in the interface, and convert both ExecuteAsync and DownloadStreamAsync to extensions. It would also allow resolving issues with extending the basic functionality, like returning a tuple for downloads (there's an open issue for that, and a PR).

[rassilon]

That definitely sounds like a good idea.

[RomanSoloweow]

Sounds perfect

[RomanSoloweow]

@alexeyzimarev any news?