Name Fussiness Again
-
I am designing a set of objects that perform the same data export task, but differ in versions, or implementation. They share fixed, common aspects I think fit well in a base class. I'm having trouble naming these objects; the best I've got so far is ExportEngine, Exporter just doesn't seem right. Any suggestions?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
I am designing a set of objects that perform the same data export task, but differ in versions, or implementation. They share fixed, common aspects I think fit well in a base class. I'm having trouble naming these objects; the best I've got so far is ExportEngine, Exporter just doesn't seem right. Any suggestions?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
I am designing a set of objects that perform the same data export task, but differ in versions, or implementation. They share fixed, common aspects I think fit well in a base class. I'm having trouble naming these objects; the best I've got so far is ExportEngine, Exporter just doesn't seem right. Any suggestions?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
I am designing a set of objects that perform the same data export task, but differ in versions, or implementation. They share fixed, common aspects I think fit well in a base class. I'm having trouble naming these objects; the best I've got so far is ExportEngine, Exporter just doesn't seem right. Any suggestions?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
Why in the soapbox? Anyway, name the common elements something (ie BradysFormat) and then call it a Writer as in BradyFormatWriter.
-
myData ;) That's a joke, BTW. The habit introduced with Windows 95 (or so it seems to me) of calling everything "myThis" and "myThat" has always made me think of "My Little Pony"
I so hate that. At least Vista does away with it, one of the very first things I noticed within the first twenty minutes of using it.
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
I am designing a set of objects that perform the same data export task, but differ in versions, or implementation. They share fixed, common aspects I think fit well in a base class. I'm having trouble naming these objects; the best I've got so far is ExportEngine, Exporter just doesn't seem right. Any suggestions?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
One of my libraries has a class called ExtractEngine. All the data buffer and file handling methods reside there. I couldn't think of a better name. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] Donate to help Conquer Cancer[^]
-
How 'bout "DataExporter"? What sort of things are you putting in it?
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
I got carried away on an architecture joy-ride way off scope. The objects I'm making actually control the export engines in a test environment, so I've gone with ExportTesterBase, ExportWizard5_2Tester, NewExportEngineTester etc. I've been told to test the exports first, manually if necessary, before spending too much time on this elaborate trickster of a test framework. I can return to this monster and do some nice, zen like and asthetic refactoring once I've done the tests.
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
Why in the soapbox? Anyway, name the common elements something (ie BradysFormat) and then call it a Writer as in BradyFormatWriter.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Why in the soapbox?
The Soapbox is the new Lounge, now that The Lounge has become the new Soapbox. Didn't you get the memo?
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Nah, I "filed" it :)
-
I got carried away on an architecture joy-ride way off scope. The objects I'm making actually control the export engines in a test environment, so I've gone with ExportTesterBase, ExportWizard5_2Tester, NewExportEngineTester etc. I've been told to test the exports first, manually if necessary, before spending too much time on this elaborate trickster of a test framework. I can return to this monster and do some nice, zen like and asthetic refactoring once I've done the tests.
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
Why not put 'em all in a namespace? Name it ExportEngines, and then leave both of those words out of the actual class names, which can then reflect what actually distinguishes them from each other.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
One of my libraries has a class called ExtractEngine. All the data buffer and file handling methods reside there. I couldn't think of a better name. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] Donate to help Conquer Cancer[^]
-
I am designing a set of objects that perform the same data export task, but differ in versions, or implementation. They share fixed, common aspects I think fit well in a base class. I'm having trouble naming these objects; the best I've got so far is ExportEngine, Exporter just doesn't seem right. Any suggestions?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
I would call it 'i'. Unless that conflicts with another class - then I would call it 'ii' or maybe 'j'. These names have served me in good stead since at least the early 80's. :-D
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Chris Meech wrote:
One of my libraries has a class called ExtractEngine.
And for bi-directional (and a more "organic") data transfer: PushMePullYou[^] :-O ["PushMePullMe"]
modified on Friday, May 9, 2008 5:00 PM
Shouldn't that be PushMePullYou[^]?
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
I am designing a set of objects that perform the same data export task, but differ in versions, or implementation. They share fixed, common aspects I think fit well in a base class. I'm having trouble naming these objects; the best I've got so far is ExportEngine, Exporter just doesn't seem right. Any suggestions?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
Sounds like you need an ExporterFactory, or possibly an ExporterProvider and ExporterProviderBase.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Shouldn't that be PushMePullYou[^]?
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Sounds like you need an ExporterFactory, or possibly an ExporterProvider and ExporterProviderBase.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Why in the soapbox?
The Soapbox is the new Lounge, now that The Lounge has become the new Soapbox. Didn't you get the memo?
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Ilíon wrote:
and a LongshoreMenUnion and a WarehouseUnion
:laugh: You know, I read that as WhorehouseUnion. I hadn't realised that prostitues had formed a union.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Shog9 wrote:
The Soapbox is the new Lounge, now that The Lounge has become the new Soapbox. Didn't you get the memo?
I was thinking of sending one out - did you write one already?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Shog9 wrote:
The Soapbox is the new Lounge, now that The Lounge has become the new Soapbox. Didn't you get the memo?
I was thinking of sending one out - did you write one already?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I was thinking of sending one out - did you write one already?
Yes, i posted it in The Lounge last night. A Soapboxy rant, full of rambling stories, dubious correlations, and tales of substance abuse. :-\
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
