On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/17/11 1:27 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2/17/11 12:07 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: >>>> >>>> getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf ? Or use getAscendant/getDescendant ? >>>> Yeah getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf sounds like it flows better and >>>> clarifies that we're taking this from the dn the operation is applied >>>> to. >>> >>> I like it better too. Will rename to use those names. >> >> Well hold on a second with the getDescendantOf operation. I think we >> have some outstanding issues with it. Please see my previous post. > > I'm not closing the door here. Here is what I suggest : I'll move the API to > use those name *for the moment*, in order to get rid of the old > getPrefix/getSuffix names, but we can discuss those names further until the > RC1. If we find a better name, I'll change them, it's a 5 mins task. I'm > *not* considering that as final move, again.
OK thanks. I just did not want to have someone say, 'we agreed to it this way'. > What is important is really to reach a point we all more or less agree, > which is not easy, as it's not a technical matter, but much more a mix of > many concerns : > - semantic > - ease of use > - language (correct and accurate english) Yes agreed. > We should not expect to get the API defintion to be a breeze, I'm not really > surprised that such things raise discussions like the one we are having. > Frankly, if we were in a room, all of us, it would be exactly the same thing > with people thinking this, other thinking that, etc, but nobody would hear > about those disagreements outside the room. We are doing that in the open, > and even if we don't agree on everything, at then end the result will be the > same : we will reach consensus, and we will get something better than any > decision made by one single person. Indeed. Thanks, Alex
