I wrote an SDK that is only comprised of static me...

# multiplatform

[Sylvain Patenaude]

I wrote an SDK that is only comprised of static methods. At first I had those methods wrapped in objects like this:

// File 'Name3.kt'
package name1.name2

object Name3 {
    fun Function1(): String {...}
}

After, I removed the "object" layer, thinking I would simplify client calls. However, when calling my Android/jvm SDK from a Java client, for instance, it looks awkward since Java doesn't support package-level functions. So it looks like this from the Java client:

import name1.name2.Name3Kt;

void func() {
    String s = Name3Kt.Function1();
}

Based on that, shouldn't I revert to my 1st solution of having my static functions wrapped in an object, so the client call (in Java) would look like this instead?

import name1.name2.Name3Kt; //SDK functions at package-level
import name1.name2.Name3;     //SDK functions at object-level

String s = Name3Kt.Function1(); //SDK functions at package-level
String s = Name3.Function1();     //SDK functions at object-level

[Dico]

Use @file:JvmName("Name3")

[Sylvain Patenaude]

It works well for Android/Jvm clients, but it doesn't solve the "issue" for an iOS consumer.
It still remains Name3Kt.function1(). 🙁
Is there a way similar to @file:JvmName("Name3") for iOS or should I go back to putting my functions in an object named "Name3"?

[Sylvain Patenaude]

It looks like even with an object named "MyObject" for instance, a call from iOS (Swift for instance) would look like this:
MyObject*Kt*.function()

[Sylvain Patenaude]

I can't believe there's nothing similar to @file:JvmName("CustomName") for iOS. Now when documenting my SDK, I need 2 different APIs for Android and iOS:
• Android: MyObjectName.someFunction()
• iOS: MyObjectName*Kt*.someFunction()
This is really annoying.