Jevex

Overall I like the idea of maintaining a wrapper for Amulet API functionality, but I think that a more straightforward implementation of the feature is possible. One of the first...

Since there's quite a few points to discuss, I wanted to start out by proposing a set of criteria that I think any system we implement should follow so we...

I realize that my proposal didn't include an example of what the original `get_chunk()` function would have looked like so I'll put an example comparison here for reference: ### API...

### Responses > The default behavior is to use the v1 API (which is the current API) which is backwards compatible. > If there comes a time when we remove...

After reviewing the Python docs on asyncio, I don't see anything that immediately indicates my proposal would be incompatible, so unless I'm missing something I believe that it passes in...

> `Calls to API functions/methods should always default to the new implementation with the deprecated functionality only available as a fallback mechanism.` > I think we should push developers to...

That error you got was just due to how the function was called. I believe that this should achieve the same effect though and doesn't raise any errors. ### Implementation...

I see my inexperience with asyncio is showing. I'll add some sleep functions for testing purposes to see if I can rework this to behave appropriately.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that this code should be using `asyncio` properly. ### Implementation ```python import asyncio import time class Chunk: def __init__(self, cx: int, cz: int): self.cx...

Replacing `main()` and `main_new()` with the following illustrates the improvement better: ```python async def main_new(): """ This is an example of new code that can call the old api but...