ctubbsii commented on PR #3544: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/3544#issuecomment-1610121578
> > The fact that it's a SecureRandom vs. just a Random is expressed in the type, either way, so I don't think putting the `SECURE` in the name (or even just `S`) helps make the calling code any more readable over `RNG` > > I agree. I think that `RANDOM` and `RNG` are my top choices for renaming but I'm leaning towards `RANDOM` just so it is a bit clearer what the variables type is. Also it seems like when we created `SecureRandom` objects throughout the code, we often use "random" as the variable name so it would be more consistent with what is already present. I'm fine with `RANDOM`, but if you wanted to, you could also go with `SRANDOM`, just to make it super clear. While the local uses may have not cared what type of random it was (they were probably just using SecureRandom to avoid a spotbugs warning), we have to also consider how the LazySingletons class presents itself, even when the callers don't necessarily care. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
