[Nitro] Og CRUD naming of methods
george.moschovitis at gmail.com
Sat Sep 29 09:20:59 EDT 2007
On second thoughts, If you have the time to go over the source code
and apply the naming conventions (while making sure that it doesnt
break everything) I could apply the patch in the current version.
On 9/29/07, George Moschovitis <george.moschovitis at gmail.com> wrote:
> I more or less agree with consistent naming. But, I am afraid this
> will have to wait for a later version.
> thanks for this *useful* post,
> On 9/29/07, Mark Van De Vyver <mvyver at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Devs
> > In [./manager.rb:initialize]
> > @store_class.allocate.destroy_db(@options) if
> > Og.destroy_schema||@options[:destroy]
> > and elsewhere there is this:
> > alias_method :destroy, :drop_table
> > alias_method :drop_schema, :drop_schema
> > Despite the typo (in the last alias) it seems there is confusion in
> > the code about whether a schema is a db or table...
> > Is it worth articulating following goal for Og to progress to?
> > To use C.R.U.D stubs to method names. so prepend:
> > create, read update, delete
> > to the following
> > *_db
> > *_table
> > *_row
> > *_field
> > I also think the abundance of aliases might hurt in the longer term -
> > it's driving me nuts. Accepting there may be some pain to adopt these
> > conventions, but won't it help to have a consistent naming convention
> > that you don't have to scramble to the docs to check: 'Is it destroy,
> > drop, delete, table, tbl, schema, etc?"
> > my 2c after a frustrating few days :)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nitro-general mailing list
> > Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
More information about the Nitro-general