It would be nice to have a guide on which one to use going forward, though... and yes the abstractions are higher priority, but we are also trying to switch APIs to AutoValue. The abstractions also use domain objects, so they will also be affected by this, right? I also don't care that much *which* naming we use, as long as it's one or the other going forward :)
________________________________________ From: Ignasi Barrera [n...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:02 AM To: dev@jclouds.apache.org Subject: Re: AutoValue Naming Conventions Honestly, I don't care that much about this naming. No offense! :) The APIs where we should put all our love are the abstracions (yes, once again! :)). All the rest are provider specific APIs that users will have to learn *one by one*, because each will have their own semantincs. In this scenario, I don't see the "getFoo()" vs "foo()" naming a real issue. I'll agree to use whatever naming convention is preferred, but I think we have more important stuff to focus on right now. I'd change the "we need consistency for our users" quote by a "we need proper abstractions for our users". That's the important thing. On 22 January 2015 at 17:53, Zack Shoylev <zack.shoy...@rackspace.com> wrote: > I think getSomeField() is more explicit and more in line with existing APIs > (consistency-wise). > Since AutoValue is/should be transparent to users, I don't think that the > default is that important :) > However, someFiled() is more concise and more in line with immutable object > semantics. > > What APIs (that have not been converted to AutoValue yet) use getSomeField()? > (the openstack ones do, but are there many others?). Since part of the > question is about consistency, perhaps we should compile a list first of what > uses what style. > Thanks! > ________________________________________ > From: Ignasi Barrera [n...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:15 AM > To: dev@jclouds.apache.org > Subject: Re: AutoValue Naming Conventions > > My preference would be to use the "someField()" form, which is the > default AutoValue used one. In my opinion, this naming convention also > enforces the concept of immutability with the absence of get/set > semantics. > > On 16 January 2015 at 19:15, Jeremy Daggett > <jeremy.dagg...@rackspace.com> wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> Can we determine the AutoValue naming conventions to use across the codebase >> going forward? Do we continue with accessors like “getSomeField()”, versus >> “someField()” as was introduced in the labs repos? For example, take a look >> at the jclouds-labs-google repo Address[2] and Bucket[3] classes. >> >> Opinions? We need consistency for our users, so any feedback is appreciated. >> Thanks! >> >> /jd >> >> [1] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/646 >> [2] >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/blob/master/google-compute-engine/src/main/java/org/jclouds/googlecomputeengine/domain/Address.java#L35 >> [3] >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/blob/master/google-cloud-storage/src/main/java/org/jclouds/googlecloudstorage/domain/Bucket.java#L41 >>
