Class/method naming conventions (yes, again....)

[Cantor, Scott]

On 10/4/13 4:49 PM, "Brent Putman" <putmanb at georgetown.edu> wrote:

>1) Much/most of java-support was written by Chad, using his preferred
>camel case convention, which is now counter to that policy.  We are
>assuming a release in the near future of java-support 2.0.0 to support
>some of Ian's work.  I have forgotten exactly what the timeframe for
>that is, but do we want to implement the naming convention change for
>java-support 2.0.0, or just defer it to a later release (which of
>necessity be a new major version)?

I think chances we won't need a 3.0 anyway are very low, so I'd suggest
deferring.

>For those cases I personally think it makes the most sense, and would
>formally propose, that we use the case that conforms to the third-party
>library's usage.  For example, a class/interface would have a
>getHttpServletRequest() method, not getHTTPServletRequest.  A builder
>class would be HttpClientBuilder, not HTTPClientBuiler.

Yes, I ran into a few cases like that and was leaving them alone on the
assumption that's what we'd want.

-- Scott