在 Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:40:38 +0800，Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 写
道:
Where I dropped the ball here, in a minor way, is that it should be
"contributeTo" as a prefix, or perhaps "configure". It's a prefix on the
*service* being configured or contributed to. So I would choose option
#2
or #3.
I wonder if there's some value in something like:
@Contribute(FooBar.class)
public void whatWouldYouCallThis(Configuration<FooBarDatum>
configuration) {
... }
This is heading a bit backwards from my initial goals, of naming
conventions
over annotations, and raises the question of the convention for naming
such
methods, but it would allow for more pleasing names such as
"contributeLoggingFilter" (with the annotation) vs.
"contributeRequestHandler" (which gives no indication what is being
contributed).
I like "contributeTo", and like @Contribute too.
On 10/12/07, Dan Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let's say you have a service that allows multiple contributions. One of
the contributions is simply a list of other objects (say an ordered
configuration). What is the naming convention for the configuration
point for that list of objects? For instance, lets say you want to have
a list of FooBars contributed. Which of the following is recommended:
contributeFooBars()
contributeFooBarManager()
contributeMasterFooBar()
or would you recommend something else entirely? I think I like the first
one simply because it more readable in the modules that are
contributing.
--
Dan Adams
Senior Software Engineer
Interactive Factory
617.235.5857
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
