Consider adding relevant network object to RpcArgs

[NoTuxNoBux]

Consider adding relevant network object to RpcArgs

[TheYellowArchitect]

The reason I'm asking is because during refactoring one may create different classes to handle specific RPCs, which then need to be passed not only the RpcArgs, but also the relevant NetworkObject. This results in a so-called data clump.
Could you give an elaborate example? Because I cannot think of a use-case like this

Slightly off-topic: How big is a NetworkObject in byte size?

[NoTuxNoBux]

Could you give an elaborate example? Because I cannot think of a use-case like this

Sure! An example: I have a network object A supporting an RPC InitiateTransfer, and I create a class InitiateTransferRpcHandler (possibly implementing an IRpcHandler), with one method Handle(RpcArgs args). Nothing too fancy.

This separates the responsibility of handling the RPC from the network object itself, which is especially useful if it has many RPCs, keeps concerns separated, and allows minimizing injected dependencies in that class as well as for the network object (in case you use dependency injection, which I do).