Niklas Long

I'm all for consolidating our efforts if possible (and full disclosure, this has was already tentatively discussed a few months back). If I recall correctly @uhoreg was going to try...

I think the first point of order is determining what the goals for either library are. I can speak only to the SDK at this point as I haven't studied...

@kowsheek thanks for weighing in here! > As with many great libraries in the Elixir ecosystem, I think we should offer both high-level & low-level abstractions so this will be...

Great suggestion, this is something I've thought about quite a bit in the past and this is definitely necessary given the size of the `Request` module. I'm not convinced by...

@inaniyants we could rename as follows: `Client` -> `API` And then go with a tree like this: ``` matrix_sdk ├── api │   ├── request │   │   ├── admin │   │  ...

Thanks for listing all the options! Point taken on encouraging a convention and I agree this is important going forward. I think these will emerge fairly naturally as this split...

@kowsheek Agreed, and thank you for the references. I think a flatter structure would be beneficial. Generally all the trees thus far have looked fairly similar (minus some fairly superficial...

I'm fully onboard with this and it would indeed clarify the purpose of the `Client` module (I'm assuming that's what you meant with `MatrixClient` ☝️)

Just to clarify, @fancycade has been doing some exploratory work related to higher abstractions around the API. In principle this is a good idea, though it needs to be handled...

Errors are probably simpler to handle than successful responses, given the sheer amount of variety in the latter. Error responses are listed [here](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.6.1#api-standards), which we could simply encapsulate in an...