net.shibboleth.utilities.java.support.component.*

[Cantor, Scott]

On 2/18/14, 11:06 AM, "Tom Zeller" <tzeller at dragonacea.biz> wrote:

>>> Nameable is fine by me, and frankly Nameable and Named seem clearer and
>>> shorter.
>>
>> FWIW, +1 on both of the above paragraphs from me. I think I like
>>Nameable/Named a little better except for the suspicion that this
>>convention might imply getName, which I don't like much.
>
>I was typing Nameable/Named should then provide getName() and
>setName() ... why do you not like those ?

Basically I think because in Spring, we know it's actually the bean ID.

-- Scott