Dave, I really don't mind either way - lets see what everyone else thinks, but I agree now is the time to get these API details agreed.
Cheers, James. On 6 Oct 2012, at 16:25, Dave Beech wrote: > Hi James > > You know, if it wasn't for the addAllOutput methods I'd completely agree with > you. "addAll" is a nice name because it's like the same method on Java > collections. But because you've got complementary pairs of input and output > methods, it's just that the obsessive-compulsive bit of my brain wants the > two to look the same! > > As for taking a List as parameter, again I agree - 99 times out a 100 I bet a > list is what you'll want to pass. But the code is a simple foreach style > loop, so my question is why limit it to lists when you could easily pass in a > Set or a Queue and it would work fine. > > I don't feel too strongly about this - just wanted to put it out and get > thoughts on it. As we're going for a 1.0.0 release I think it's important we > get these little API details agreed now rather than be stuck with something > we're not completely happy with. > > Cheers, > Dave > > On 6 Oct 2012, at 14:46, James Kinley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 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 >>
