On 24/04/2009, Tobias Schlitt <t...@ez.no> wrote: > Hi Fred, > > > On 04/24/2009 09:10 PM Frederik Holljen wrote: > > 2009/4/24 Tobias Schlitt <t...@ez.no>: > > >> On 04/22/2009 10:08 PM Frederik Holljen wrote: > > >>> Hmm... isn't that a bit obfuscated? How are people supposed to know > >>> (without looking in the docs) what the purpose is for each of them? > >>> What exactly (short in your words) does the new one do? > > >> ezcPersistentSession > >> Basic, original session. > >> ezcPersistentIdentitySession > >> Decorator for ezcPersistentSession, which performs identity > >> management. > > >> What exactly is obfuscated? > > > In the original mail the name was ezcPersistentObjectSession... > > > Yes. Let me elaborate a bit more: The problem with the decorator > (ezcPersistentIdentitySession) is, that it is not "instanceof > compatible" with ezcPersistentSession. This is especially a problem in > ezcPersistentSessionInstance (the signleton/registry class for the > sessions). > > Therefore my proposal was to introduce a new interface, which will be > implemented by both ezcPersistentSession and > ezcPersistentIdentitySession (and possible later decorators to these). > For this interface I proposed the name ezcPersistentObjectSession. > Right, looking at the source I can see that IdentitySession doesn't inherit anything at the moment adding the interface will solve your problems.
Why not name the decorator something with decorator. This clearly signals the intentions of the class for people who know what a decorator is. Others will be taught the difference :) I propose: ezcPersistentSessionBase or Definition for the interface ezcPersistentSessionIdentityDecorator for the decorator Somewhat longer but more descriptive and you'll only write it once anyway... Frederik -- Components mailing list Components@lists.ez.no http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
