Hi James You know, if it wasn't for the addAllOutput methods I'd completely agree with you. "addAll" is a nice name because it's like the same method on Java collections. But because you've got complementary pairs of input and output methods, it's just that the obsessive-compulsive bit of my brain wants the two to look the same!
As for taking a List as parameter, again I agree - 99 times out a 100 I bet a list is what you'll want to pass. But the code is a simple foreach style loop, so my question is why limit it to lists when you could easily pass in a Set or a Queue and it would work fine. I don't feel too strongly about this - just wanted to put it out and get thoughts on it. As we're going for a 1.0.0 release I think it's important we get these little API details agreed now rather than be stuck with something we're not completely happy with. Cheers, Dave On 6 Oct 2012, at 14:46, James Kinley <kin...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I quite like addAll and withAll and would normally rely on the Javadoc for > the details, but I agree that addInputs and withInputs are more descriptive > names so I'm happy if you want to change them. > > Regarding the input type, what other types of input do you see users passing > in that cannot be handled by List? > > Cheers, > > James. > > On 6 Oct 2012, at 13:09, Dave Beech wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I'm having a go at resolving MRUNIT-138. I'll get a patch out for >> review before commit since I will be breaking backwards-compatibility. >> >> One thing I'd like your opinion on in the meantime. I'm not completely >> happy with the names of the multiple input/output methods added in >> MRUNIT-64. I think they're a little inconsistent with each other and >> in the case of the input ones (withAll, addAll) - not very >> descriptive. I'd like to rename these (not a compatibility issue since >> they aren't yet included in a release version). >> >> What do you think? >> >> withAll -> rename to (a) withInputs OR (b) withAllInput >> addAll -> rename to (a) addInputs OR (b) addAllInput >> >> Obviously if you think (a) is best, I'd rename the withAllOutput >> methods to withOutputs to match. >> >> Also - should the input type of these methods be changed from List to >> Collection (or Iterable maybe), to make it more flexible as to what >> you can pass in? >> >> Thanks, >> Dave >
