Prefix or suffix? [modified * 2]
-
Are you really planning that these methods don't have any arguments? What about making the difference with some kind of overload? Something like:
getCoorelation() --current
getCorrelation(Date date) --historic correlation of dateRobert
Generally speaking, the methods will have quite a few arguments. They are far from being finalized, though. Great suggestion, I was surprised nobody else noticed. :-D
Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
-
Christoph Menge wrote:
Is correlation alone a sufficient description for the entity, or is it necessary to call it liveCorrelation?
Actually, yes. A SpreadCurve is an entity by itself. The only thing that differentiates between live and historical SpreadCurves is that the historical ones are from previous days. Thanks for your input; I'm somewhat surprised (and somewhat pleasantly so) to see pretty much everybody actually disagrees. ;)
Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
I think in that case
GetIndexCurveHistory()andGetIndexCurve(), etc., should fit in right. The word, histor_ic_ is a bit confusing.Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I'm somewhat surprised (and somewhat pleasantly so) to see pretty much everybody actually disagrees.
Everyone disagrees, for a reason, may be? Or you just think that is plain coincidence? :-D
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
Generally speaking, the methods will have quite a few arguments. They are far from being finalized, though. Great suggestion, I was surprised nobody else noticed. :-D
Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I was surprised nobody else noticed.
On my reply to Cristoph, I already said we could have overloads.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
On the perverted side, we can have an overload like ::GetCorrelation(Entity E) if we have too may entities on which we could possibly make this call. :-O
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
I am designing an API, which will (amongst other things) provide live and historic values for many types of data. Let's say the data types will be
Correlation,IndexCurve, andRollDate, amongst many others. The methods that get live data will be calledgetCorrelation(),getIndexCurve(), andgetRollDate()respectively (the word**live**will not be part of the name). Would you prefer the methods that deal with historic data (anything before today's data) to be calledgetCorrelationHistoric()
getRollDateHistoric()or
getHistoricCorrelation()
getHistoricRollDate()I strongly want to keep the modifier as the suffix (i.e.,
getCorrelationHistoric()) but I'm interested in knowing what you would do, and why. :) [EDIT]If it makes any difference, these methods will be part of a web service. Written in Java ;) [/EDIT] [EDIT2]Added clarifications[/EDIT2]Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
modified on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:15 AM
I would consider:
getCorrelation(bool historic); getRollDate(bool historic);along withgetCorrelation();// calls above with falsegetRollDate();// calls above with false Cheers.- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
I would consider:
getCorrelation(bool historic); getRollDate(bool historic);along withgetCorrelation();// calls above with falsegetRollDate();// calls above with false Cheers.- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Not quite. Historic data should be available for a few years, so the date has to be specified. I'm gravitating towards what the other guy said - one overload that takes a date parameter.
Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
-
I think in that case
GetIndexCurveHistory()andGetIndexCurve(), etc., should fit in right. The word, histor_ic_ is a bit confusing.Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I'm somewhat surprised (and somewhat pleasantly so) to see pretty much everybody actually disagrees.
Everyone disagrees, for a reason, may be? Or you just think that is plain coincidence? :-D
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I think in that case GetIndexCurveHistory() and GetIndexCurve(), etc., should fit in right. The word, historic is a bit confusing.
History doesn't really make sense. It implies you want the entire bunch of past values. I thought Historic was bang on target (and so did my UK colleague).
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Everyone disagrees, for a reason, may be? Or you just think that is plain coincidence?
Not sure I understand what you're saying. :~ I still think getIndexCurveHistoric is better than getHistoricIndexCurve but I will go with the date overload. It will look like this:
IndexCurve getIndexCurve(string curveID);
IndexCurve getIndexCurve(string curveID, DateTime asOfDate);Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
-
I am designing an API, which will (amongst other things) provide live and historic values for many types of data. Let's say the data types will be
Correlation,IndexCurve, andRollDate, amongst many others. The methods that get live data will be calledgetCorrelation(),getIndexCurve(), andgetRollDate()respectively (the word**live**will not be part of the name). Would you prefer the methods that deal with historic data (anything before today's data) to be calledgetCorrelationHistoric()
getRollDateHistoric()or
getHistoricCorrelation()
getHistoricRollDate()I strongly want to keep the modifier as the suffix (i.e.,
getCorrelationHistoric()) but I'm interested in knowing what you would do, and why. :) [EDIT]If it makes any difference, these methods will be part of a web service. Written in Java ;) [/EDIT] [EDIT2]Added clarifications[/EDIT2]Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
modified on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:15 AM
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I think in that case GetIndexCurveHistory() and GetIndexCurve(), etc., should fit in right. The word, historic is a bit confusing.
History doesn't really make sense. It implies you want the entire bunch of past values. I thought Historic was bang on target (and so did my UK colleague).
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Everyone disagrees, for a reason, may be? Or you just think that is plain coincidence?
Not sure I understand what you're saying. :~ I still think getIndexCurveHistoric is better than getHistoricIndexCurve but I will go with the date overload. It will look like this:
IndexCurve getIndexCurve(string curveID);
IndexCurve getIndexCurve(string curveID, DateTime asOfDate);Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I still think getIndexCurveHistoric is better than getHistoricIndexCurve but I will go with the date overload. It will look like this:
I like this better than any of the other suggestions I've seen.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
I am designing an API, which will (amongst other things) provide live and historic values for many types of data. Let's say the data types will be
Correlation,IndexCurve, andRollDate, amongst many others. The methods that get live data will be calledgetCorrelation(),getIndexCurve(), andgetRollDate()respectively (the word**live**will not be part of the name). Would you prefer the methods that deal with historic data (anything before today's data) to be calledgetCorrelationHistoric()
getRollDateHistoric()or
getHistoricCorrelation()
getHistoricRollDate()I strongly want to keep the modifier as the suffix (i.e.,
getCorrelationHistoric()) but I'm interested in knowing what you would do, and why. :) [EDIT]If it makes any difference, these methods will be part of a web service. Written in Java ;) [/EDIT] [EDIT2]Added clarifications[/EDIT2]Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
modified on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:15 AM
A convention I originally used for SQL, but has permeated into other code, was to not prefix procedures with "Get", "Set", "Update" or the like. Instead I have "CustomerNameSelect()" or "CustomerNameUpdate" instead of "SelectCustomerName()" or "UpdateCustomerName()". In an alphabetical listing I find it's easier to find what you want if all your "CustomerName" operations are lumped together rather than all your Select operations.
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I think in that case GetIndexCurveHistory() and GetIndexCurve(), etc., should fit in right. The word, historic is a bit confusing.
History doesn't really make sense. It implies you want the entire bunch of past values. I thought Historic was bang on target (and so did my UK colleague).
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Everyone disagrees, for a reason, may be? Or you just think that is plain coincidence?
Not sure I understand what you're saying. :~ I still think getIndexCurveHistoric is better than getHistoricIndexCurve but I will go with the date overload. It will look like this:
IndexCurve getIndexCurve(string curveID);
IndexCurve getIndexCurve(string curveID, DateTime asOfDate);Cheers, Vikram.
"real dictators don't loose[sic] elections." - Diego Moita.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
History doesn't really make sense.
Hmm... My assumption was that you'd send a parameter like CDateTime (I don't know the .net equivalent of it... I guess it is DateTime from your post) to that call. I must have been clear about the parameters though. But, the overloads you've specified in this post looks just perfect.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Not sure I understand what you're saying.
I'm saying that everyone disagreed with you, because they felt it could have been better. :)
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP