A modern programming language that makes developers happier.

kotlinlang

*FEEDBACK NEEDED*

Folks, 2.0 is around the corner, and we are polishing up the last of our work on the new version.

As you may be aware, we’re going to introduce a new API for writing custom plugins that is fluent and easy to use (you can read more about here <https://ktor.io/docs/eap/custom-plugins.html>)

We’ve made a new plugin API to extend the existing one with the same types.

```val DataTransformationPlugin = createApplicationPlugin(name = "DataTransformationPlugin", ::Config) {
    // ...
}```

It turns out that if the library mode is enabled, it becomes a bit more complicated to read because of the type:

```public val DataTransformationPlugin: ApplicationPlugin&lt;Application, Config, PluginInstance&gt; = createApplicationPlugin(name = "DataTransformationPlugin", ::Config) {
}```

where *Application* and *PluginInstance* are fixed.

We’re thinking about several options on how we can solve this:

*First option*
Drop obsolete generic parameters from `ApplicationPlugin` and keep it as `ApplicationPlugin&lt;Config&gt;`  We need to introduce `_NAME_ApplicationPlugin&lt;Application, Config, PluginInstance&gt;` replacement for existing plugins, so it will be a breaking change.

```public val DataTransformationPlugin: ApplicationPlugin&lt;Config&gt; = createApplicationPlugin(name = "DataTransformationPlugin", ::Config) {    // ...
}```

*Second Option*
Introduce typealias `_NAME_&lt;Config&gt;` and keep `ApplicationPlugin` as it is.

```public val DataTransformationPlugin: NAME&lt;Config&gt; = createApplicationPlugin(name = "DataTransformationPlugin", ::Config) {
    // ...
}```
*Third Option*
Keep `ApplicationPlugin&lt;Application, Config, Instance&gt;` as it is.


The problem with introducing _NAME_ is precisely what we could call something that actually already has a name, i.e. ApplicationPlugin. Anything along the lines of “Default”, “Simple” or similar incorrectly could lead to the wrong assumptions.

What are your thoughts on this?

Seeing as 2.0 already introduces some breaking changes, I'd prefer option one and have it clean moving forward. I'm confident the community will upgrade third party plugins pretty quickly.

:100: Agreed, it also doesn’t like such a big breaking change that it becomes an enormous hassle to migrate IMO.