On 4 October 2012 23:56, Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Justin wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote: >> >>> I believe the convention I'm following is actually the norm (for a good >>> reason). The get/set_foo >>> pattern is used for passive slots, i.e. it's a strong signal that if you >>> call set_foo with a given >>> value then get_foo will return that same value until set_foo is called >>> again. Whereas >>> dynamic/computed/derived values (something where it would never make >>> sense to have a setter) are >>> generally not prefixed by get. Some examples in Java would be things like >>> Collection.size(), >>> Object.hashCode(), Map.values(). I think this is a pretty valuable >>> convention as it is a signal that >> >> >> I agree that's a common convention in java. It's not "the norm": >> counterexamples are Thread.getState(), Integer.getInteger(s), >> File.getFreeSpace(). >> >> In any case, it's arguably a good convention. It has one particular >> practical problem, more collisions. This problem is exhibited right now in >> pn_link_drained. What does that do? It *looks like* it is a dynamic >> predicate, but it isn't. If in the future you want to add such a predicate, >> you'll have a collision. _get_ keeps things cleanly separated. (In the case >> of pn_link_drained, I think that just needs a better name.) >> >> I'm pleased we're discussing this. Can we discuss it (and all the other >> things worth discussing, imo) before we set down changes in the code? > > > I've updated the proposal again. I've also adjusted the Java naming to > match the C naming in the main. Of course, they needn't work the same > necessarily, but for instance, I figured that if we're going to distinguish > between computed/derived and passive attributes in C, we ought to as well in > Java. >
So... personally I don't have quite the horror of extra characters that certain others do... and I think prepending an "is" on methods that are returning a boolean is a reasonable deviation from the pattern established in the C. I can buy that there are certain methods where the get/set pairing doesn't really imply the actual semantics that the methods have. In general for the "count" type variables that cannot directly be set, I think getXxxCount() also works, but I'm also happy with the current xxx() style. There are a couple of areas where I think the naming definitely needs work, in particular hostname: The "local" hostname is actually the hostname that is desired to be chosen at the remote endpoint, while the "remote" hostname is the hostname that the remote endpoint desires at the local side. Of the proposals, I think Delivery.update is less wrong than "acknowledge" ... the update may not be an acknowledgement but some other form of state change. Also rescind_credit is not really the semantics of drain (if there are messages available then the peer should send them, not simply cancel the credit). Source and Target - currently the API is incomplete here - a proper definition of these types is needed which is why in the Java I've currently got these as Source/Target Address. The Source and Target types should be properly defined with APIs which allow for the setting of other attributes than just the address. -- Rob > Justin
