[RFC] Typed identifiers

[SoniEx2]

I noticed NOVA always uses string identifiers. IMO NOVA should use typed identifiers:

1. Identifier interface
   • The I at the beginning is necessary to avoid conflicts with a bunch of things (e.g. Kotlin). Could also be NOVAIdentifier - it just can't be Identifier. EDIT: I derped, mixed something up .-.
   • Single method: String asString();
   • Implementations should override equals, hashCode and toString.
2. UUIDIdentifier class
   • Used when the identifier is an UUID.
   • Additional methods: UUID asUUID();
3. ClassIdentifier class
   • Used when the identifier is a Class.
   • Additional methods: Class<?> asClass();
4. StringIdentifier class
   • Used when the identifier is an actual, proper String.

Will make a PR once we figure out if this is a good idea.

[calclavia]

It's a nice idea, but I feel like it may be an overkill. Can you list out the benefits and drawbacks?

[SoniEx2]

As far as I can see right now:

Benefits:

1. Can downcast
2. ClassIdentifier compares uniquely for the same name, unlike what we currently have
3. Can still convert to string when desired
4. String IDs don't conflict with UUIDs/classnames
5. Extensible

Drawbacks:

1. Downcasting needs instanceof checks
2. Adds more classes

[calclavia]

I might have misunderstood what you meant by typed identifiers. So you're saying we should extend a base Identifier class and have subclasses that represent different Identifiers... I think that should be fine :)

[ExE-Boss]

According to the above specification, the base Identifier is supposed to be an interface, but it could also be an abstract class, or it could be an abstract class called AbstractIdentifier implementing the IIdentifier interface.