Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92C2C62C5 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 10:28:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 70822 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jul 2011 10:28:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 70337 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jul 2011 10:28:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 70317 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jul 2011 10:28:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:28:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jodastephen@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.43] (HELO mail-qw0-f43.google.com) (209.85.216.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:28:31 +0000 Received: by qwf6 with SMTP id 6so3157577qwf.30 for ; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 03:28:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=mrnsN3dJVkqmPsVX7+GUISh+US216RnXtsv1urTNHYE=; b=WyfZRS982TeQgOUNSGnu7BqcdF9b00j5TdjfpgP/9+OpYaQiFVYZvnYIkocTFOn9AD SMAkS3tl1B0Y99Ph6HrJcWf84AxbMyHgRM/vw73jrYCkZGPOYxGttXgm/LNBf/NFbEjm teezNjvL85WT5W0Spqk8OC0kkDDcr9WAAQ8ik= Received: by 10.229.130.228 with SMTP id u36mr1504840qcs.45.1309775291123; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 03:28:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jodastephen@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.40.18 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 03:27:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Stephen Colebourne Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:27:50 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: mOL49Efa9q2ZX-H8HfpG60Skb-s Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lang] Time for RC3? To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 3 July 2011 19:07, Gary Gregory wrote: > > http://markmail.org/message/ml7efpvqezysvs2p?q=Validate+list:org%2Eapache%2Ecommons%2Edev/ > > Since this has gone quiet, I was going to follow through and rename the > validate* method (which are all @since 3.0) to check*. Someone else like it > it ;) > > But have two different verbs is smelly: Validate.check*(), As I mention in > the thread, a validator validates a state, so I like best: > Validator.validate*(). > > But changing an existing class name seems more controversial and possibly > more trouble than it is worth. If it were just up to me, I would just bite > the bullet and do it for the sake of nice and pretty, but I am concerned > about downstream users. I have reviewed Validate, and am happy with it as currently written. It is also widely used, so I would recommend against change. It is an "assertion" class to replace the assert keyword in Java. The class name and method names all read OK in that context. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org