On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > On 12/28/2007 10:35 AM Alexandru Stanoi wrote: > > >> Beside this request for review, I'd like to discuss a naming issue with > >> you. So far I named the interface for data type conversions > >> "ezcPersistentObjectPropertyConversion", because the classes > >> implementing it will perform a conversion. By now I think this name > >> sounds kinda strange and should actually be > >> "ezcPersistentObjectPropertyConverter" instead. What do you think? > > > I like the first name better, but for interfaces we are using names > > similar to the second one (eg. ezcConfigurationReader, ezcFeedParser, > > ezcDocumentConverter, etc). > > Yeah, I see it the same way. For consistency we should rename all > occurances of "conversion" to "converter". Votes please: > > [ ] +1 (yes, rename it to "converter") > [ ] 0 (whatever) > [ ] -1 (no, "conversion" is better, keep it that way)
It needs to be a noun, so "convertor" - I don't think it's too useful to rename all other occurences though - if they even exist. > Beside that, I wonder if ezcPersistentObjectPropertyConverter (and as > it's implementation ezcPersistentObjectPropertyDateTimeConverter) aren't > a bit toooo long names. Maybe we can reduce that to something like > ezcPersistentPropertyConverter? We could do that indeed, as long as we keep starting with "ezcPersistent". regards, Derick -- Components mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
