httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe+gm...@sunstarsys.com>
Subject Re: deprecated attribute? / naming
Date Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:27:58 GMT
Max Kellermann <max@duempel.org> writes:

[...]

> A little bit about names..
>
> I noticed you deprecated "apreq_cookie()" and replaced it by
> "apreq_jar_get()". 

I didn't mean to "deprecate" apreq_cookie(); sorry about that.
apreq_cookie(s) should remain a part of our headers, in some form.

I would like to maintain parity between apreq_cookie_* and
apreq_param_*.  So lets drop apreq_cookie() from our exported
symbols (by inlining it); and do the same for apreq_param().  
Include the plural forms apreq_cookies() and apreq_params() as
well.

> "jar" used to be the name for the class which collects cookies. I
> would rather drop the name "jar" now in favor of "cookie":

For now, I would rather leave "jar" as-is.

>  apr_status_t (*cookies)(apreq_env_handle_t *, const apr_table_t **);
>  apreq_cookie_t *(*cookie_get)(apreq_env_handle_t *, const char *);
>
> When we're discussing the function names in apreq_env.h, what do you
> think about the following renames:
>
>  apreq_args_get -> apreq_get_arg
>  apreq_jar_get -> apreq_get_cookie

I think the rule should be apreq_$object_$method; and I think we 
should only stray from the rule when the OO pattern doesn't make 
sense. To me "args", "jar" and "body" are IMO collections, so let's 
try to think of them as (singular) objects, ok?

-- 
Joe Schaefer


Mime
View raw message