What about finding some way to make the parameters type safe? Perhaps a simple Category class that wraps a String? Writing Log.info(new Category(message), category) would jump out at me as being very noticeably wrong. That would avoid the confusion now between Log.info() and Log.i(). Is the extra verbosity worth it?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Emily Crutcher <[email protected]> wrote: > Both actually, though if we don't change the method names, changing the > order of the parameters without breaking everyone currently using logging > would be almost impossible. > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Isaac Truett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> While I agree entirely regarding the undesirability of single-letter >> method names, I also wonder if perhaps Emily was referring, in part at >> least, to the order of the two parameters, message and category? >> Making that consistent doesn't seem unduly burdensome. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Freeland Abbott >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > At a speculative guess, Android may be choosing short names to keep the >> > compiled class files smaller, since they're such a memory-restricted >> > environment (they also like filenames like R.java to contain what >> > amounts to >> > a dictionary of resource hash-references). I'm not sure I see Android >> > as a >> > server platform for GWT apps, so that issue goes away for us in the >> > compile >> > and obfuscate cycle of client code for the Android browser. >> > >> > So I second Joel's "yuck," and see no reason to override the aesthetic >> > objection. ;-) >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Joel Webber <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Log.i()? Yuck. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Emily Crutcher <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> In some ways, android is now a sister project of gwt. For our static >> >>> logging, we use methods like >> >>> Log.info(String message, String category) the same method in android >> >>> is >> >>> Log.i(String category, String message). Is it worth normalizing those >> >>> static >> >>> method calls? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand >> >>> binary, and those who don't" >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > -- > "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand > binary, and those who don't" > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
