Should Html.PrimeCache be named Html.PrimeCacheAsync?

[justinvp]

MVC APIs that return Task/Task<T> have the Async suffix, e.g. Html.PartialAsync.

For consistency with MVC APIs and as an indicator to developers that they should @await the result, shouldn't Html.PrimeCache be named Html.PrimeCacheAsync?

[SteveSandersonMS]

Yes, I think you're right! Will add that as a new overload and will mark the old one as obsolete.

[justinvp]

While you're at it, maybe the new overload should return Task<IHtmlContent> instead of Task<HtmlString> (like Html.PartialAsync), which would allow the results to be written to a TextWriter instead of having to concatenate/format/allocate a (potentially large) string to return with HtmlString? HtmlString itself implements IHtmlContent so the existing implementation could remain as-is for now; returning Task<IHtmlContent> leaves the door open to perf improvements in the future.

[justinvp]

(To give you an idea, I prototyped some potential changes to the existing implementation earlier this weekend: 4c7bdcf)

[SteveSandersonMS]

Implemented. As per your suggestion, also changed the return type to Task<IHtmlContent>. Currently it's still using HtmlString but could change to a custom less-allocatey alternative like your prototype in the future.