John, if you ask some school kid which priority comes first: 1 or 2? Then they will almost 100% answer '1', right?
So I rather use a term which is not so well known and people can at least google/ask/read up what it means than to instantly have the wrong interpretation because we use a term against it's natural meaning ;) LieGrue, strub On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 15:48, John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 9:40:09 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >We should get a common understanding which of those 2 different approaches we >should take. >>My main concern is that it should be clear as glass for the user what he gets. >> >>What has a higher priority? 1, 2, or 3 ? >>Imo the highes priority is always 1. But then it's really hard to add a more >>important priority. >> > > >When building a property provider, you specify that the priority order is >either asc or desc at the provider level. > > >>We've discussed this to some extent in OpenWebBeans where I first implemented >>this mechanism in 2009 (see PropertyLoader). And back then we decided to not >>use 'priority' but 'ordinal'. Because the higher the ordinal (math) the more >>important something is. >>That way it is really easy to add a ConfigSource which is 'even more >>important' and thus tweak the effective configuration. >> >>What do others think about those 2 approaches? >> >> > > >You have to remember that at times, you need to explain some of this stuff to >people who aren't mathematicians. Even techies can glaze over when you say >ordinal. Would be better to use more common speech terms like priority. > > >>LieGrue, >>strub >> > >
