No one likes getIsXXX! This was a decision based on my limited (basically
no) knowledge about IDL.
My fear was that IDL always binds XXX attributes to get/setXXX methods,
which is not always appropriate. For example, assume we want a method to
return whether a type is anonymous. The ideal name would be
"isAnonymousType()". But if the "get" prefix is used, it becomes
"getAnonymousType()", which is far away from what it really means.
If IDL is capable to bind read-only boolean attributes to isXXX() methods,
I'd be more than happy to see it (than getIsXXX). IDL gurus, is this
possible?
Cheers,
Sandy Gao
Software Developer, IBM Canada
(1-905) 413-3255
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Christopher
Ebert" To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<cebert@pocket cc:
this.com> Subject: RE: PSVI interface changes
05/31/2002
01:16 PM
Please respond
to
xerces-j-user
Hi,
I _do_ use Schema and 'getIsXXX' looks like it's trying to
follow two conventions at once. I would prefer 'isXXX' for booleans but
I'm happy with 'getXXX' too. I don't suppose we can change the component
API instead? The IDL could have XXX as the attribute, no?
Huh. Taken another way, it means I wouldn't want to send someone
to look at code that used PSVI as an example because I wouldn't want
them to name their attributes/accessors that way. So unless you're
trying to set up 'getIsXXX' as a new convention I would eschew it.
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
