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
>
>
|
