Re: Getters without the "get" part
Re: Getters without the "get" part
- Subject: Re: Getters without the "get" part
- From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:19:03 -0400
Can I ask why WO as a whole doesn't use the 'get' prefix?
It is a silly Java hack for JavaBeans. It adds no value to the
method name, just makes it longer. It makes it harder to parse a
list of methods as so many are named get...
... or .... it makes it easier to see the accessor methods as separate
from non-accessor methods and makes a symmetric "get" accessor API to
the "set" mutator API. This is especially confusing when you have
properties where the noun form is a homonym of a verb, and it becomes
non-obvious whether you are performing an action or calling a
(typically) idempotent accessor. And you're really not going to call
out "long names" when your primary framework is WebObjects, right?
Don't make me bust out my list of crazy long method names in WO. I
have completion -- what do I care if it's one extra character to do
the complete in exchange for clarity.
It seems to me that most people I talk to that like the non-get form
are from Objective-C and most people who are annoyed by it are WO
converts from traditional Java. To me, WO's lack of getXxx (along
with its proprietary collections API, though I've come to love the
immutable collections interface) make WO feel that much more "out
there." But I've been doing it so long now (I decided to not rock the
boat in 2004) that I'm mostly used to it, but I do think it only hurts
code clarity.
ms
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden