On 9/12/17, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote: > I am really wonder guys. I thought you are not big funs of Object protocol. > Current pinning messages are a new set of very generic messages in the > Object. > > About Norbert idea. > - bePinnedObject is not bad convention.
>But I would prefer the memory > suffix because it reflects the low level behaviour. +1 > 2017-09-11 14:16 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: > >> yes, me :) >> >> I do not see a reason to change them, tbh. >> for me they are comprensible as they are now and it does not adds more >> information pinInMemory or pinMemory. >> >> Esteban >> >> >> On 11 Sep 2017, at 11:56, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Anybody else? >> >> 2017-08-31 10:29 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]>: >> >>> >>> >>> 2017-08-31 10:24 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> We now have very generic message names: >>>> - pin >>>> - unpin >>>> - setPinned: >>>> - isPinned >>>> >>>> Problem that they collide with possible domain related names. >>>> For example I implemented pinning of tabs in Calypso and I found that I >>>> overrides #pin and #isPinned messages. Then I fix it with different >>>> names. >>>> Probably menus also uses pin word but without overrides >>>> >>>> What you think about renaming pinning messages? Something like: >>>> - pinMemory >>>> >>> >>> I would use pinInMemory >>> >>> -- Pavel >>> >>> >>>> - unpinMemory >>>> - isMemoryPinned >>>> - setPinnedMemory: >>>> - pinMemoryDuring: (if we will introduce it) >>>> >>>> I think it is easy to do now because not much code uses pinning >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
