Should ChromaDB.Client.Extensions be separate? #54

Activity

1. cincuranet

   self-assigned this

   on Oct 2, 2024
2. cincuranet

   changed the title [-]Should ChromaDB.Client.Extensions be separate[/-] [+]Should ChromaDB.Client.Extensions be separate?[/+] on Oct 2, 2024
3. cincuranet commented on Oct 14, 2024

   

   cincuranet

   on Oct 14, 2024

   CollaboratorAuthor

   More actions

   After careful considerations with @roji, we should keep it separate - to not bring more dependencies than necessary -, but rename it to ChromaDB.Client.DependencyInjection.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Shay Rojansky
4. ssone95 commented on Oct 14, 2024

   

   ssone95

   on Oct 14, 2024 via email

   Last edited by ssone95

   Owner

   More actions

   Hi there, Somehow I missed this tag on the issue, but yes, to me - it’s definitely okay to keep them separate, so we can proceed with *.DependencyInjection name.

   …

   On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 17:03, Jiri Cincura ↹ ***@***.***> wrote: After careful considerations with @roji <https://github.com/roji>, we should keep it separate - to not bring more dependencies than necessary -, but rename it to ChromaDB.Client.DependencyInjection. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#54 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAL2KO27CIO42GKS6WZHZKTZ3PMLPAVCNFSM6AAAAABPHK5ZCCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMJRGUZTGNRVGI> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
5. ssone95

   closed this as completedin #63on Nov 5, 2024
6. Laurianti commented on Oct 4, 2026

   

   Laurianti

   on Oct 4, 2026

   Last edited by Laurianti

   More actions

   ChromaDotNet.Client keeps the separate package, registers the client as a singleton and adds AddKeyedChromaClient (#84).