When comparing AddressValue with RFC 9553 I noticed an issue:
In section 2.5.1.2. AddressComponent Object AddressCompontnets are defined. These include the street name and house number, the postal code, etc.
While AddressValue defines a property components, it's type is simply List<Map<String, String>>? which while not wrong doesn't really help with anything.
More pressingly, AddressValue has properties such as street or postcode which duplicate properties that should be contained in AddressComponents.
I know this stems from us still supporting earlier drafts of the spec, but maybe we should discuss dropping these earlier versions (so wait with implementing/ fixing until we decided on this).
In the end we should have an AddressValue wich represents the current spec, uses a class for AddressCompontnets, and said class should use an enum for the possible kind of address component.
Further: I saw there already exists the class Components for "NameComponent. This class should be renamed to NameComponent` and use an enum for kind as well.
When comparing
AddressValuewith RFC 9553 I noticed an issue:In section 2.5.1.2. AddressComponent Object AddressCompontnets are defined. These include the street name and house number, the postal code, etc.
While
AddressValuedefines a propertycomponents, it's type is simplyList<Map<String, String>>?which while not wrong doesn't really help with anything.More pressingly,
AddressValuehas properties such asstreetorpostcodewhich duplicate properties that should be contained inAddressComponents.I know this stems from us still supporting earlier drafts of the spec, but maybe we should discuss dropping these earlier versions (so wait with implementing/ fixing until we decided on this).
In the end we should have an
AddressValuewich represents the current spec, uses a class forAddressCompontnets, and said class should use an enum for the possiblekindof address component.Further: I saw there already exists the class
Componentsfor "NameComponent. This class should be renamed toNameComponent` and use an enum for kind as well.