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 :)
on 2007-09-29 03:11
on 2007-09-29 15:20
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, -g. On 9/29/07, Mark Van De Vyver <mvyver@gmail.com> wrote: > > *_row > Nitro-general mailing list > Nitro-general@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general > -- http://gmosx.me.gr http://phidz.com http://blog.gmosx.com http://cull.gr http://www.joy.gr http://nitroproject.org
on 2007-09-29 15:21
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. -g. On 9/29/07, George Moschovitis <george.moschovitis@gmail.com> wrote: > > @store_class.allocate.destroy_db(@options) if > > Is it worth articulating following goal for Og to progress to? > > it's driving me nuts. Accepting there may be some pain to adopt these > > > -- > http://gmosx.me.gr > http://phidz.com > http://blog.gmosx.com > http://cull.gr > http://www.joy.gr > http://nitroproject.org > -- http://gmosx.me.gr http://phidz.com http://blog.gmosx.com http://cull.gr http://www.joy.gr http://nitroproject.org
on 2007-09-29 15:44
Being all in favor of consistent naming could I still say : be careful with this? This is no breaking news but it's surprising how easy one overlooks something when renaming a method. And since the test suite is all but complete... Ok, please carry on. (ab) George Moschovitis schreef:
on 2007-09-29 15:45
Arne Brasseur schreef: > Being all in favor of consistent naming could I still say : be careful > with this? This is no breaking news but it's surprising how easy one > overlooks something when renaming a method. And since the test suite > is all but complete... I mean : far from complete...
on 2007-09-29 23:22
Hi, good points on making a single naming schema for whole Og. While I do think that is generally a good idea, I propose on doing what was originally the plan for the next release: * Get test suite running I'm starting to sound like a broken recording, sorry. :/ Jo
on 2007-09-30 02:46
Hi, On 9/30/07, Jonathan Buch <john@oxyliquit.de> wrote: > Hi, > > good points on making a single naming schema for whole Og. > > While I do think that is generally a good idea, I propose on doing > what was originally the plan for the next release: > > * Get test suite running I had in mind more of an ongoing goal. And yes, this is easier done with confidence once the specs are complete. At the moment I'm holding back DBI adapter commits until a large chunk of functionality is done/settled will then send patches. Do we invoke a rule at some point that patches only accepted with an accompanying doc and some spec/test? If we do this then there should be more detail on the dev. page about any style choices. Mark
Enable email notification
Enable multi-page view