So classical OO naming convention. Class = noun Method = verb
Validator.validateNotNull versus the non-OO Validate.notNull. Theoretically - sure. Reality? assertEquals only works in JUnit because it's in the inheritance chain. I think I'd dislike Asserter.assertEquals :) Hen On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > It is a verb, of course, but methods should be verbs. I am only appealing to > the classical naming convention of methods. They do the work; classes don't. > You can't ask a class to validate; you can ask its methods to validate. > > Paul > > On 11/30/2009 1:31 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: >> >> Validate isn't a verb? >> >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Paul Benedict<pbened...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> I am not catering to static imports. I am catering towards a >>> consistent naming convention. If you compare our names to what exists >>> in Spring's and Google's API, you will find that ours are not >>> verb-ified. The whole static import discussion is just an additional >>> benefit. >>> >>> What I would like to focus on is having a common verb in front of all. >>> Saying "notNull" is a statement, not an action. Is that really what we >>> want to keep? >>> >>> Paul > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
