If the class' purpose is to provide DSL elements, then how about naming it FindBugsDSL?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Adam Murdoch <adam.murd...@gradleware.com>wrote: > > On 15/08/2012, at 11:04 PM, Luke Daley wrote: > > I think we should avoid doing this. > > My issue with it is that it's weak modelling. Not to pick on FindBugs > (it's by far not the only plugin that does this, including my own), but > what's the role of a class named “FindBugsExtension”? > > These things have a purpose or function, and the name should reflect it. > The fact that it's a build language extension is not really relevant to its > name I don't think. > > > But that's exactly it's purpose. Every plugin has an extension object that > wires in the DSL for that plugin. It's just a container for a set of DSL > elements for that plugin. That's all it is, the entire reason for its > existence. Certainly, each particular element of the plugin's DSL has > individual purpose, and should be typed and modelled and named according to > it's purpose. No question there. > > The fact that the FindBugs DSL currently only contains properties that > define some default values is a coincidence. We might later add, say, some > ruleset definitions. These aren't defaults - they're a model. So, > FindBugsDefaults would have to be renamed back to FindBugsExtension. > > These things are DSL extensions. > > > -- > Adam Murdoch > Gradle Co-founder > http://www.gradle.org > VP of Engineering, Gradleware Inc. - Gradle Training, Support, Consulting > http://www.gradleware.com > >
