Would it make sense to expose the IScheduler instance in NetDaemonScheduler?

[varyamereon]

Perhaps this is best framed through my use case...

It is necessary to pass in IScheduler when using entity.StateChanges().WhenStateIsFor(...). However mostly I am using the INetDaemonScheduler in my constructors, so at the moment it is necessary to pass in both the INetDaemonScheduler and IScheduler to my apps in order to use WhenStateIsFor(). However INetDaemonScheduler contains a reference to IScheduler that is private, would it make sense to make this public so that I can just use that instance instead? For example:

    public SampleApp(IHaContext haContext, INetDaemonScheduler scheduler)
    {
        var entities = new Entities(haContext);

        entities.InputBoolean.HomeOccupied
            .StateChanges()
            .WhenStateIsFor(c => c.IsOff(), TimeSpan.FromMinutes(5), scheduler.ReactiveScheduler)
            .Subscribe(DoSomething);
    }

instead of:

    public SampleApp(IHaContext haContext, INetDaemonScheduler scheduler, IScheduler reactiveScheduler)
    {
        var entities = new Entities(haContext);

        entities.InputBoolean.HomeOccupied
            .StateChanges()
            .WhenStateIsFor(c => c.IsOff(), TimeSpan.FromMinutes(5), reactiveScheduler)
            .Subscribe(DoSomething);
    }

I'm not sure of the advantages/disadvantages of either solution other than the first is neater, hence the discussion!

[FrankBakkerNl]

Seems like we do not really monitor the discussions on GitHub ;-)

The INetDaemonScheduler does little that cannot also be done via the reactivex IScheduler, so we mainly keep it around for backwards compatibility.

[varyamereon]

No worries Frank, it's been a while since I wrote this and everything is working on my end so evidently it's not a big deal!

Thanks for getting back to me.