On 13.01.2012 14:10, Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > Am Freitag, den 13.01.2012, 13:00 +0000 schrieb Giuseppe D'Angelo: >> On 13 January 2012 12:32, Mathias Hasselmann<math...@openismus.com> wrote: >>>> what about the slightly more garden-variety approach of deprecating >>>> the old one and introducing a new method? >>> >>> Maybe we should check the premise of this discussion first. >>> Does that method really have the wrong name? It is called >>> "createRequest" and after all it causes creation of a network request. >>> Now this network request is just an internal object, and not exposed to >>> the API user. Instead the watchable reply object is returned in advance. >> >> The problem is that it doesn't match the Qt namings for the relevant >> classes... createRequest takes a QNetworkRequest (which is a >> "description" of the request that should be made), starts making the >> underlying network request as you described, but then also creates and >> returns a reply (QNetworkReply). Bikeshedding? > > Surely startRequest() would have been a better name. > But really not sure it is worth the hassle of changing it. > Still Robins suggestions shows a practical approach. >
'create' sounds like 'new', therefore QNetworkReply* r = x->createRequest(..); looks like int* i = new char; which is indeed strange. But to think first about what "createRequest" really does is a good idea: It not only creates a request, it also sends it, so why not rename it to 'doRequest' or something similar which is different to 'createReply' which is as misleading as 'createRequest'. A new name would stop the compiler and there will be no silent bugs. And replacing a simple function name isn't that hard, so there is no need for a 'migration path' via deprecated functions. Peter _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development