Where I dropped the ball here, in a minor way, is that it should be
"contributeTo" as a prefix, or perhaps "configure". It's a prefix on the
*service* being configured or contributed to. So I would choose option #2
or #3.
I wonder if there's some value in something like:
@Contribute(FooBar.class)
public void whatWouldYouCallThis(Configuration<FooBarDatum> configuration) {
... }
This is heading a bit backwards from my initial goals, of naming conventions
over annotations, and raises the question of the convention for naming such
methods, but it would allow for more pleasing names such as
"contributeLoggingFilter" (with the annotation) vs.
"contributeRequestHandler" (which gives no indication what is being
contributed).
On 10/12/07, Dan Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let's say you have a service that allows multiple contributions. One of
> the contributions is simply a list of other objects (say an ordered
> configuration). What is the naming convention for the configuration
> point for that list of objects? For instance, lets say you want to have
> a list of FooBars contributed. Which of the following is recommended:
>
> contributeFooBars()
>
> contributeFooBarManager()
>
> contributeMasterFooBar()
>
> or would you recommend something else entirely? I think I like the first
> one simply because it more readable in the modules that are
> contributing.
>
> --
> Dan Adams
> Senior Software Engineer
> Interactive Factory
> 617.235.5857
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Partner and Senior Architect at Feature50
Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind
