Hi Dave, I quite like addAll and withAll and would normally rely on the Javadoc for the details, but I agree that addInputs and withInputs are more descriptive names so I'm happy if you want to change them.
Regarding the input type, what other types of input do you see users passing in that cannot be handled by List? Cheers, James. On 6 Oct 2012, at 13:09, Dave Beech <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'm having a go at resolving MRUNIT-138. I'll get a patch out for > review before commit since I will be breaking backwards-compatibility. > > One thing I'd like your opinion on in the meantime. I'm not completely > happy with the names of the multiple input/output methods added in > MRUNIT-64. I think they're a little inconsistent with each other and > in the case of the input ones (withAll, addAll) - not very > descriptive. I'd like to rename these (not a compatibility issue since > they aren't yet included in a release version). > > What do you think? > > withAll -> rename to (a) withInputs OR (b) withAllInput > addAll -> rename to (a) addInputs OR (b) addAllInput > > Obviously if you think (a) is best, I'd rename the withAllOutput > methods to withOutputs to match. > > Also - should the input type of these methods be changed from List to > Collection (or Iterable maybe), to make it more flexible as to what > you can pass in? > > Thanks, > Dave
