Hi, I changed the implementation like you suggested and contributed the corresponding patch.
Thanks for the feedback Wim! :) Greez, Dirk On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Dirk Fauth <[email protected]> wrote: > Didn't want to blame you for the naming. By the time you implemented it, > it was ok. :-) > > Your suggestion sounds like a plan. I will modify it this way and > contribute. > > Thanks for the reply! > Am 27.07.2013 12:54 schrieb "Wim Jongman" <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Wim, >> >>> I renamed your method because of the meaning of the method. My >>> getCommands() is the getter for the commands while your getCommands() do >>> some additional processing in flattening the commands. So in terms of API >>> design it is the better choice. But of course I can change that. Any >>> suggestions for another name to the real getter? >>> >> >> I totally agree that your naming is correct and that my naming is wrong. >> However, we cannot change the contract of an API method. >> >> I suggest you do the following: >> >> 1. Copy your getCommands to getCommandList() >> 2. Change the getCommands method as a delegate to getFlattenedCommands >> 3. Mark the getCommands as deprecated and explain the deprecation in the >> javadoc >> >> This way it is clear that the getCommands method is not correct, the user >> can see from the javadoc which method to call and we do not break the >> contract. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Wim >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nebula-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev >> >>
_______________________________________________ nebula-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev
