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

[Rod J. <ro...@in...>]

Can't say it bothers me either. I guess I choose between the two based on euphony also.

But I have no issue with standardization, as it involves only deprecation at this point.

R

Colin Sampaleanu wrote:
> I personally don't get that hung up about it. Both or equally valid 
> forms (and recognized by JavaBeans tools and the like), and the reality 
> is that sometimes you have a word which sounds horrible with is and ok 
> with get, or vice-versa. On the other hand, if they sound ok both ways 
> then there's nothing wrong with trying to be consistent.
> 
> 
> jürgen höller [werk3AT] wrote:
> 
>> 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
>