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

[Ian Young]

On 18 Feb 2014, at 16:06, 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 ?

As Scott guessed, my reason was just that this whole thing is about making the property have the same value as the bean's "id" attribute, so having it called "name" (getName/setName) instead seems a bit wonky. It would also require rather a lot of changes to both sources and bean configuration files.

To flip it around, the reason I liked Nameable/Named a bit better is mainly that they are a little more visually distinct than Identifiable/Identified. It's a very minor bias, and if we felt that we'd need to change the property name if we went for Nameable/Named (which I agree is probably the consistent approach) then I'd prefer to go with Identifiable/Identified.

	-- Ian (not on a train any more)



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5943 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/dev/attachments/20140219/8f03737d/attachment-0001.bin