So I'm speaking with my AMQP management / consistency across the entire Qpid project hats on, rather than to Dispatch specifically.
Hyphens are not valid in property names in JMS and so should be avoided (as though I'm sure Robbie is working on a way to encode them within a legal name, it's going to be kludgy). >From a consistency point of view, Alan has already mentioned that all the AMQP standard attributes are in (lower) camel case. All the attributes on objects managed through the Java Broker are similarly in lower camel. Therefore I would think that that would be the least surprising. Obviously irrational hate is a powerful counter argument however :-). -- Rob On 18 October 2014 04:39, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm good with underscores. Truth be told, I have a mild preference for the > hyphens and think translation to legal identifiers is trivial, but I can > tell I'm gonna lose that one. > > I share your visceral distaste for camelCase. We should form a club. > > +1 to underscores, and +manymany to not having three different conventions > in one component. > > Justin > On Oct 17, 2014 8:11 PM, "Alan Conway" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > While working on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-56 I > > have noticed that dispatch currently uses 3 different conventions for > > naming management attributes: > > > > - foo_bar > > - foo-bar > > - fooBar > > > > Please vote for your favorite. > > > > My vote is foo_bar. It's a legal identifier in most programming > > languages and I have an irrational hatred of fooBar. > > However note fooBar is the convention used by the AMQP management spec > > (sigh) and we have already written the code to cope with foo-bar. > > > > Cheers, > > Alan. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
