|
From: Colin S. <col...@ex...> - 2004-09-27 14:29:06
|
Fine with me. I'm not a big fan of humongous method names just for consistency (compare a typical Java program to a typical Python program, in terms of standard library usage), but these are not overly long... jürgen höller [werk3AT] wrote: >I've just deprecated PoolingConfig's "int getActive" and "int getFree" methods in favor of "getActiveCount" and "getIdleCount", to make their naming consistent with the rest of the framework. > >We've had various namings for such methods before, for example "getNrOfXxx" or "getXxxCount". Since 1.1, everything should be named "getXxxCount". PoolingConfig just slipped through my review... > >Interestingly, most Jakarta Commons projects use "getNumXxx" naming. Well, the most important thing is probably just consistency, whatever naming pattern chosen. > >In particular, I believe that such methods that return a count should explicitly express this in their name. Therefore, a name like "getActive" is not clear enough, IMO: It could also return an active object... > >Thoughts? Objections? > >Juergen > > |