RE: [Springframework-developer] isXxx/getXxx for boolean properties

[Keith D. <kd...@cs...>]

My 2c... I think it's better to use what is clearest on a case by case
basis.  Good names (those that are clear but not too wordy) are very
important. Generally the isXxx variation should is the most readable IMO
anyway, but sometimes isXxx just doesn't fit.

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: spr...@li...
[mailto:spr...@li...] On Behalf =
Of
j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:30 AM
To: spr...@li...
Subject: [Springframework-developer] isXxx/getXxx for boolean properties

I've just noticed that we're slightly inconsistent in our naming for =
getters
that return boolean bean properties. Most of them are called "isXxx", =
but 9
of them in the entire codebase are called "getXxx".

We should find a consistent rule here. For example, should we prefer
"isProxyTargetClass" or "getProxyTargetClass"? Neither is nice English, =
so I
guess it's more about a convention then about nice method names.

I tend to prefer the "isXxx" versions for all boolean properties. That =
would
also be easier in terms of affected classes, as we just have 9 accessors
that do not conform to that rule (i.e. 9 to be deprecated).

On the other hand, "getXxx" might result in slightly nicer English in =
some
boolean cases...

Opinions?

Juergen


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give =
us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out =
more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Springframework-developer mailing list
Spr...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer