[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-65?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13253520#comment-13253520
]
Michael Dürig commented on OAK-65:
----------------------------------
I tend to disagree for my reasons given above. I can live with the current
names though. However we still need to come up with a better name for
TransientNodeState. That name as earned a lot of critique (and rightly so) but
no one came up with a better name so far either.
> Naming of NodeState and related classes
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-65
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-65
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core, mk
> Reporter: Michael Dürig
>
> As discussed here [1] we should rethink the nameing of the NodeState and
> related classes.
> I suggest the following renaming:
> NodeState -> NodeData
> PropertyState -> PropertyData
> TransientNodeState -> NodeState
> KernelNodeState -> KernelNodeData
> My reasoning: the current NodeState and PropertyState classes are immutable
> (and thus
> represent pure values i.e. data). The word state implies mutability
> (after all OOP is about mutation of state all over) so renaming
> TransientNodeState to NodeState should make sense. Also the oak API will
> be more publicly visible than the lower level MK API. So having catchy
> names there is a plus.
> http://markmail.org/thread/xi5dgjljduc7y7eq
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
