Search Results

Search found 2093 results on 84 pages for 'naming containers'.

Page 1/84 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Naming a class that decides to retrieve things from cache or a service + architecture evaluation

  - by Thomas Stock

  Hi, I'm a junior developer and I'm working on a pet project that I want to learn as much as possible from. I have the following scenario: There's a WCF service that I use to retrieve and update data, lets say Cars. So it's called CarWCFService and has a GetCars(), SaveCar(), ... . It implements interface ICarService. This isn't the Actual WCF service but more like a wrapper around it. Upon retrieving data from the service, I want to store them in local memory, as cache. I have made a class for this called CarCacheService which also implements interface ICarService. (I will explain later why it implements ICarService) I don't want client code to be calling these implementations. Instead, I want to create a third implementation for ICarService that tries to read from the CarCacheService before calling the WCFCarService, stores retrieved data in the CarCacheService, etc. 3 questions: How do I name this third class? I was thinking about something as simple as CarService. This does not really says what the service does exactly, tho. Is the naming for the other classes good? Would this naming and architecture be obvious for future programmers? This is my biggest concern. Does this architecture make sense? The reason that I implement ICarService on the CarCacheService is mainly because it allows me to fake the WCFService while debugging. I can store dummy data in a CarCacheService instance and pass it to the CarService, together with an(other) empty CarCacheService. If I made CacheCarService and WCFService public I could let client code decide if they want to drop the caching and just work directly on the WCFService.

  Read the article

• Naming a predicate: "precondition" or "precondition_is_met"?

  - by RexE

  In my web app framework, each page can have a precondition that needs to be satisfied before it can be displayed to the user. For example, if user 1 and user 2 are playing a back-and-forth role-playing game, user 2 needs to wait for user 1 to finish his turn before he can take his turn. Otherwise, the user is displayed a waiting page. This is implemented with a predicate: def precondition(self): return user_1.completed_turn The simplest name for this API is precondition, but this leads to code like if precondition(): ..., which is not really obvious. Seems to me like it is more accurate to call it precondition_is_met(), but not sure about that either. Is there a best practice for naming methods like this?

  Read the article

• Naming: objectAction or actionObject?

  - by DocSalvage

  The question, Stored procedure Naming conventions?, and Joel's excellent Making Wrong Code Look Wrong article come closest to addressing my question, but I'm looking for a more general set of criteria to use in deciding how to name modules containing code (classes, objects, methods, functions, widgets, or whatever). English (my only human language) is structured as action-object (i.e closeFile, openFile, saveFile) and since almost all computer languages are based on English, this is the most common convention. However, in trying to keep related code close together and still be able to find things, I've found object-action (i.e. fileClose, fileOpen, fileSave) to be very attractive. Quite a number of non-English human languages follow this structure as well. I doubt that one form is universally superior, but when should each be used in the pursuit of helping to make sure bad code looks bad?

  Read the article

• Linux-Containers — Part 1: Overview

  - by Lenz Grimmer

  "Containers" by Jean-Pierre Martineau (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). Linux Containers (LXC) provide a means to isolate individual services or applications as well as of a complete Linux operating system from other services running on the same host. To accomplish this, each container gets its own directory structure, network devices, IP addresses and process table. The processes running in other containers or the host system are not visible from inside a container. Additionally, Linux Containers allow for fine granular control of resources like RAM, CPU or disk I/O. Generally speaking, Linux Containers use a completely different approach than "classicial" virtualization technologies like KVM or Xen (on which Oracle VM Server for x86 is based on). An application running inside a container will be executed directly on the operating system kernel of the host system, shielded from all other running processes in a sandbox-like environment. This allows a very direct and fair distribution of CPU and I/O-resources. Linux containers can offer the best possible performance and several possibilities for managing and sharing the resources available. Similar to Containers (or Zones) on Oracle Solaris or FreeBSD jails, the same kernel version runs on the host as well as in the containers; it is not possible to run different Linux kernel versions or other operating systems like Microsoft Windows or Oracle Solaris for x86 inside a container. However, it is possible to run different Linux distribution versions (e.g. Fedora Linux in a container on top of an Oracle Linux host), provided it supports the version of the Linux kernel that runs on the host. This approach has one caveat, though - if any of the containers causes a kernel crash, it will bring down all other containers (and the host system) as well. For example, Oracle's Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel Release 2 (2.6.39) is supported for both Oracle Linux 5 and 6. This makes it possible to run Oracle Linux 5 and 6 container instances on top of an Oracle Linux 6 system. Since Linux Containers are fully implemented on the OS level (the Linux kernel), they can be easily combined with other virtualization technologies. It's certainly possible to set up Linux containers within a virtualized Linux instance that runs inside Oracle VM Server for Oracle VM Virtualbox. Some use cases for Linux Containers include: Consolidation of multiple separate Linux systems on one server: instances of Linux systems that are not performance-critical or only see sporadic use (e.g. a fax or print server or intranet services) do not necessarily need a dedicated server for their operations. These can easily be consolidated to run inside containers on a single server, to preserve energy and rack space. Running multiple instances of an application in parallel, e.g. for different users or customers. Each user receives his "own" application instance, with a defined level of service/performance. This prevents that one user's application could hog the entire system and ensures, that each user only has access to his own data set. It also helps to save main memory — if multiple instances of a same process are running, the Linux kernel can share memory pages that are identical and unchanged across all application instances. This also applies to shared libraries that applications may use, they are generally held in memory once and mapped to multiple processes. Quickly creating sandbox environments for development and testing purposes: containers that have been created and configured once can be archived as templates and can be duplicated (cloned) instantly on demand. After finishing the activity, the clone can safely be discarded. This allows to provide repeatable software builds and test environments, because the system will always be reset to its initial state for each run. Linux Containers also boot significantly faster than "classic" virtual machines, which can save a lot of time when running frequent build or test runs on applications. Safe execution of an individual application: if an application running inside a container has been compromised because of a security vulnerability, the host system and other containers remain unaffected. The potential damage can be minimized, analyzed and resolved directly from the host system. Note: Linux Containers on Oracle Linux 6 with the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel Release 2 (2.6.39) are still marked as Technology Preview - their use is only recommended for testing and evaluation purposes. The Open-Source project "Linux Containers" (LXC) is driving the development of the technology behind this, which is based on the "Control Groups" (CGroups) and "Name Spaces" functionality of the Linux kernel. Oracle is actively involved in the Linux Containers development and contributes patches to the upstream LXC code base. Control Groups provide means to manage and monitor the allocation of resources for individual processes or process groups. Among other things, you can restrict the maximum amount of memory, CPU cycles as well as the disk and network throughput (in MB/s or IOP/s) that are available for an application. Name Spaces help to isolate process groups from each other, e.g. the visibility of other running processes or the exclusive access to a network device. It's also possible to restrict a process group's access and visibility of the entire file system hierarchy (similar to a classic "chroot" environment). CGroups and Name Spaces provide the foundation on which Linux containers are based on, but they can actually be used independently as well. A more detailed description of how Linux Containers can be created and managed on Oracle Linux will be explained in the second part of this article. Additional links related to Linux Containers: OTN Article: The Role of Oracle Solaris Zones and Linux Containers in a Virtualization Strategy Linux Containers on Wikipedia - Lenz Grimmer Follow me on: Personal Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Linux Blog |

  Read the article

• Stored procedure Naming conventions?

  - by Chris

  One of our senior developers has stated that we should be using a naming convention for stored procedures with an "objectVerb" style of naming such as ("MemberGetById") instead of a "verbObject" type of naming ("GetMemberByID"). The reasoning for this standard is that all related stored procedures would be grouped together by object rather than by the action. While I see the logic for this way of naming things, this is the first time that I have seen stored procedures named this way. My opinion of the naming convention is that the name can not be read naturally and takes some time to determine what the words are saying and what the procedure might do. What are your takes on this? Which way is the more common way of naming a stored proc, and does a what types of stored proc naming conventions have you used or go by?

  Read the article

• Naming Convention for Dedicated Thread Locking objects

  - by Chris Sinclair

  A relatively minor question, but I haven't been able to find official documentation or even blog opinion/discussions on it. Simply put: when I have a private object whose sole purpose is to serve for private lock, what do I name that object? class MyClass { private object LockingObject = new object(); void DoSomething() { lock(LockingObject) { //do something } } } What should we name LockingObject here? Also consider not just the name of the variable but how it looks in-code when locking. I've seen various examples, but seemingly no solid go-to advice: Plenty of usages of SyncRoot (and variations such as _syncRoot). Code Sample: lock(SyncRoot), lock(_syncRoot) This appears to be influenced by VB's equivalent SyncLock statement, the SyncRoot property that exists on some of the ICollection classes and part of some kind of SyncRoot design pattern (which arguably is a bad idea) Being in a C# context, not sure if I'd want to have a VBish naming. Even worse, in VB naming the variable the same as the keyword. Not sure if this would be a source of confusion or not. thisLock and lockThis from the MSDN articles: C# lock Statement, VB SyncLock Statement Code Sample: lock(thisLock), lock(lockThis) Not sure if these were named minimally purely for the example or not Kind of weird if we're using this within a static class/method. Several usages of PadLock (of varying casing) Code Sample: lock(PadLock), lock(padlock) Not bad, but my only beef is it unsurprisingly invokes the image of a physical "padlock" which I tend to not associate with the abstract threading concept. Naming the lock based on what it's intending to lock Code Sample: lock(messagesLock), lock(DictionaryLock), lock(commandQueueLock) In the VB SyncRoot MSDN page example, it has a simpleMessageList example with a private messagesLock object I don't think it's a good idea to name the lock against the type you're locking around ("DictionaryLock") as that's an implementation detail that may change. I prefer naming around the concept/object you're locking ("messagesLock" or "commandQueueLock") Interestingly, I very rarely see this naming convention for locking objects in code samples online or on StackOverflow. Question: What's your opinion generally about naming private locking objects? Recently, I've started naming them ThreadLock (so kinda like option 3), but I'm finding myself questioning that name. I'm frequently using this locking pattern (in the code sample provided above) throughout my applications so I thought it might make sense to get a more professional opinion/discussion about a solid naming convention for them. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Naming conventions used for variables and functions in C

  - by Zel

  While coding a large project in C I came upon a problem. If I keep on writing more code then there will be a time when it will be difficult for me to organize the code. I mean that the naming for functions and variables for different parts of the program may seem to be mixed up. So I was thinking whether there are useful naming conventions that I can use for C variables and functions? Most languages suggest a naming convention. But for C the only thing I have read so far is the names should be descriptive for code readability. EDIT: Examples of some examples of suggested naming conventions: Python's PEP 8 Java Tutorial I read some more naming conventions for java somewhere but couldn't remember where.

  Read the article

• Printer Naming Conventions

  - by John

  I am working on building a new AD print server and have been pondering the idea of renaming the printers. Right now we have a mix of names that varies between a mashup of some that reference location, some that reference functional area, and some that are rather generic. Some examples include the following: Dell 5210 - Building Name HP 4350 - Functional Area Dell Color 3100 - Location and Building Number HP 6500 - Mailroom I was curious what other people used to name their printers with. What conventions do you use and how to design a method that will be able to be used for a while without needing to rename them all again. Also, the naming methodology needs to be understandable for regular computing users so that they can relatively easily find the printer that they need. I was looking at some ideas from here, but I was not sure how practical some of them are. Any help that you can provide is appreciated. Note: I have reviewed many of the postings on here in relation to server naming conventions and found that they were not specific enough for the use case I present above.

  Read the article

• Datacentre Rack naming convention with flexibility for reassignment of server roles

  - by g18c

  We are just shifting across to a new rack and until now have used names of cartoon characters. This is not going to work anymore, and need a better naming convention. Physically i would like to name the servers by location, and then have an alias as to its actual function/customer, i.e. Physical name LONS1R1SVR1 meaning London, suite 1, rack 1, server 1 Customer Alias Since the servers can be reassigned from time to time, for the above physical server name, i would have an alias as a column in a spreadsheet, that would be set to the customers host-name, i.e. wwww.customerserver1.com Patching For patching, I am looking at labeling up the physically connections, i.e. LON1S1R1SVR1-PWR1 LON1S1R1SVR1-PWR2 LON1S1R1SVR1-ETH0 LON1S1R1SVR1-KVM Ultimately if i am labeling cables, I really want to avoid putting LON1S1R1SQLSVR on any patch cord in case the server gets formatted and changed from a SQL server to a WWW server which would need to relabel all the patch cords also. In addition, throwing in virtual machines, i have got confused very quickly. I appreciated that it may be confusing having a physical host-name and customer alias. Please let me know what you run with and any other standards or best practices that i can follow?

  Read the article

• Enforce SSIS naming conventions using BI-xPress

  - by jamiet

  A long long long time ago (in 2006 in fact) I published a blog post entitled Suggested Best Practises and naming conventions in which I suggested a bunch of acronyms that folks could use to prefix object names in their SSIS packages, thus allowing easier identification of those objects in log records, here is a sample of some of those suggestions: If you have adopted these naming conventions (and I am led to believe that a bunch of people have) then you might like to know that you can now check for adherence to these conventions using a tool called BI-xPress from Pragmatic Works. BI-xPress includes a feature called the Best Practices Analyzer that scans your packages and assess them according to some rules that you specify. In addition Pragmatic Works have made available a collection of these rules that adhere to the naming conventions I specified in 2006 You can download this collection however I recommend you first read the accompanying article that demonstrates the capabilities of the Best Practices Analyzer. Pretty cool stuff. @Jamiet

  Read the article

• What happened this type of naming convention?

  - by Smith

  I have read so many docs about naming conventions, most recommending both Pascal and Camel naming conventions. Well, I agree to this, its ok. This might not be pleasing to some, but I am just trying to get you opinion why you name you objects and classes in a certain way. What happened to this type of naming conventions, or why are they bad? I want to name a struct, and i prefix it with struct. My reason, so that in IntelliSense, I see all the struct in one place, and anywhere I see the struct prefix, I know it's a struct: structPerson structPosition anothe example is the enum, although I may not prefix it with "enum", but maybe with "enm": enmFruits enmSex again my reason is so that in IntelliSense, I see all my enums in one place. Because, .NET has so many built in data structures, I think this helps me do less searching. Please I used .NET in this example, but I welcome language agnostic answers.

  Read the article

• Naming convention: Final fields (not static)

  - by Zeeker

  Today I had a discussion with a co-worker about the naming of final fields in Java classes. In his opionion final fields should also be considered constants since their values won't change after the creation of the instance. This would lead to the following naming convention for final fields: public class Foo { private static final String BLA_BLA = "bla"; private final String BAR_BATZ; ... } In my opinion only static final fields should be considered constants while fields which are only final should follow the usual camelCase naming convention. public class Foo { private static final String BLA = "bla"; private final String barBatz; ... } Now I'm a bit uncertain since he is a far more experienced programmer than I am and I usually agree with his opinions and consider him a very good developer. Any input on this?

  Read the article

• Variable naming conventions?

  - by Ziv

  I've just started using ReSharper (for C#) and I kind of like its code smells finder, it shows me some things about my writing that I meant to fix a long time ago (mainly variable naming conventions). It caused me to reconsider some of my naming conventions for methods and instance variables. ReSharper suggests that instance variable be lower camel case and begin with an underscore. For a while I meant to make all my local variables lower camel case but is the underscore necessary? Do you find it comfortable? I don't like this convention but I also haven't tried it yet, what is you opinion of it? The second thing it prompted me to re-evaluate is my naming conventions for GUI event handlers. I usually use the VS standard of ControlName_Action and my controls usually use hungarian notation (as a suffix, to help clarify in code what is visible to the user and what isn't when dealing with similarly named variable) so I end up with OK_btn_Click(), what is your opinion of that? Should I succumb to the ReSharper convention or there are other equally valid options?

  Read the article

• Zookeeper naming service [closed]

  - by kolchanov

  I need a recommendation for naming service implementation. We are ISV and we have a lot of applications (services) with very different protocols such as http (Rest), low level tcp, amqp, diameter, telco protocols Rx, Ry, Ud and many others. We want to simplify configuration, deployment and service discovery procees and it seems that It's time to create central configuration registry. So I have few questions: - is zookeeper suitable for this purpose? - does exists more suitable and more special solution? - best practice for service naming for discoverin. Any standards? - recommendation for service configuration data structure Also we are keeping in mind future tasks For dynamic application distribution in a private cloud. Could you share your real life experience?

  Read the article

• Tree position terminology/naming

  - by wst

  This is a naming things question. I am processing trees (XML documents), and there are often special rules applied to nodes based on structure. It's been very difficult coming up with concise naming conventions for some cases, namely for nodes in the first position among their siblings, along with some recursive relationship: Given an arbitrary node, I want to describe its first child, and then that node's first child, and so on recursively. Given another arbitrary node, I want to describe its parent if the parent is first among its siblings, and that parent's parent if it's first, and so on recursively. Is there existing terminology to describe these tree positions? How would you name a variable or function that captures one of these cases so that it's intuitive to an unfamiliar developer trying to understand an algorithm?

  Read the article

• Naming interfaces for persistent values

  - by orip

  I have 2 distinct types of persistent values that I'm having trouble naming well. They're defined with the following Java-esque structure, borrowing Guava's Optional for the example and using generic names to avoid anchoring: interface Foo<T> { T get(); void set(T value); } interface Bar<T> { Optional<T> get(); void set(T value); } With Foo, if the value hasn't been set explicitly then there's some default value available or pre-set. With Bar, if the value hasn't been set explicitly then there's a distinct "no value" state. I'm trying to optimize the names for their call sites. For example, someone using Foo may not care whether there's a default value involved, only that they're guaranteed to always have a value. How would you go about naming these interfaces?

  Read the article

• Acceptable placement of the composition root using dependency injection and inversion of control containers

  - by Lumirris

  I've read in several sources including Mark Seemann's 'Ploeh' blog about how the appropriate placement of the composition root of an IoC container is as close as possible to the entry point of an application. In the .NET world, these applications seem to be commonly thought of as Web projects, WPF projects, console applications, things with a typical UI (read: not library projects). Is it really going against this sage advice to place the composition root at the entry point of a library project, when it represents the logical entry point of a group of library projects, and the client of a project group such as this is someone else's work, whose author can't or won't add the composition root to their project (a UI project or yet another library project, even)? I'm familiar with Ninject as an IoC container implementation, but I imagine many others work the same way in that they can scan for a module containing all the necessary binding configurations. This means I could put a binding module in its own library project to compile with my main library project's output, and if the client wanted to change the configuration (an unlikely scenario in my case), they could drop in a replacement dll to replace the library with the binding module. This seems to avoid the most common clients having to deal with dependency injection and composition roots at all, and would make for the cleanest API for the library project group. Yet this seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom on the issue. Is it just that most of the advice out there makes the assumption that the developer has some coordination with the development of the UI project(s) as well, rather than my case, in which I'm just developing libraries for others to use?

  Read the article

• Guidance in naming awkward objects?

  - by GlenH7

  I'm modeling a chemical system, and I'm having problems with naming my objects within an enum. I'm not sure if I should use: the atomic formula the chemical name an abbreviated chemical name. For example, sulfuric acid is H2SO4 and hydrochloric acid is HCl. With those two, I would probably just use the atomic formula as they are reasonably common. However, I have others like sodium hexafluorosilicate which is Na2SiF6. In that example, the atomic formula isn't as obvious (to me) but the chemical name is hideously long: myEnum.SodiumHexaFluoroSilicate. I'm not sure how I would be able to safely come up with an abbreviated chemical name that would have a consistent naming pattern. From a maintenance point of view, which of the options would you prefer to see and why? Audience for the code will be just programmers, not chemists. If that guides the particulars: I'm using C#; I'm starting with 10 - 20 compounds and would have at most 100 compounds. The enum is to facilitate common calculations - the equation is the same for all compounds but you insert a property of the compound to complete the equation.

  Read the article

• Guidance in naming awkward domain-specific objects?

  - by GlenH7

  I'm modeling a chemical system, and I'm having problems with naming my objects within an enum. I'm not sure if I should use: the atomic formula the chemical name an abbreviated chemical name. For example, sulfuric acid is H2SO4 and hydrochloric acid is HCl. With those two, I would probably just use the atomic formula as they are reasonably common. However, I have others like sodium hexafluorosilicate which is Na2SiF6. In that example, the atomic formula isn't as obvious (to me) but the chemical name is hideously long: myEnum.SodiumHexaFluoroSilicate. I'm not sure how I would be able to safely come up with an abbreviated chemical name that would have a consistent naming pattern. From a maintenance point of view, which of the options would you prefer to see and why? Some details from comments on this question: Audience for the code will be just programmers, not chemists. I'm using C#, but I think this question is more interesting when ignoring the implementation language I'm starting with 10 - 20 compounds and would have at most 100 compounds. The enum is to facilitate common calculations - the equation is the same for all compounds but you insert a property of the compound to complete the equation. For example, Molar mass (in g/mol) is used when calculating the number of moles from a mass (in grams) of the compound. Another example of a common calculation is the Ideal Gas Law and its use of the Specific Gas Constant

  Read the article

• Meaningful concise method naming guidelines

  - by Sam

  Recently I started releasing an open source project, while I was the only user of the library I did not care about the names, but know I want to assign clever names to each methods to make it easier to learn, but I also need to use concise names so they are easy to write as well. I was thinking about some guidelines about the naming, I am aware of lots of guidelines that only care about letters casing or some simple notes. Here, I am looking after guidelines for meaningful concise naming. For example, this could be part of the guidelines I am looking after: Use Add when an existing item is going to be added to a target, Use Create when a new item is being created and added to a target. Use Remove when an existing item is going to be removed from a target, Use delete when an item is going to be removed permanently. Pair AddXXX methods with RemoveXXX and Pair CreateXXX methods with DeleteXXX methods, but do not mix them. The above guidance may be intuitive for native English speakers, but for me that English is my second language I need to be told about things like this.

  Read the article

• The problems with Avoiding Smurf Naming classes with namespaces

  - by Daniel Koverman

  I pulled the term smurf naming from here (number 21). To save anyone not familiar the trouble, Smurf naming is the act of prefixing a bunch of related classes, variables, etc with a common prefix so you end up with "a SmurfAccountView passes a SmurfAccountDTO to the SmurfAccountController", etc. The solution I've generally heard to this is to make a smurf namespace and drop the smurf prefixes. This has generally served me well, but I'm running into two problems. I'm working with a library with a Configuration class. It could have been called WartmongerConfiguration but it's in the Wartmonger namespace, so it's just called Configuration. I likewise have a Configuration class which could be called SmurfConfiguration, but it is in the Smurf namespace so that would be redundant. There are places in my code where Smurf.Configuration appears alongside Wartmonger.Configuration and typing out fully qualified names is clunky and makes the code less readable. It would be nicer to deal with a SmurfConfiguration and (if it was my code and not a library) WartmongerConfiguration. I have a class called Service in my Smurf namespace which could have been called SmurfService. Service is a facade on top of a complex Smurf library which runs Smurf jobs. SmurfService seems like a better name because Service without the Smurf prefix is so incredibly generic. I can accept that SmurfService was already a generic, useless name and taking away smurf merely made this more apparent. But it could have been named Runner, Launcher, etc and it would still "feel better" to me as SmurfLauncher because I don't know what a Launcher does, but I know what a SmurfLauncher does. You could argue that what a Smurf.Launcher does should be just as apparent as a Smurf.SmurfLauncher, but I could see `Smurf.Launcher being some kind of class related to setup rather than a class that launches smurfs. If there is an open and shut way to deal with either of these that would be great. If not, what are some common practices to mitigate their annoyance?

  Read the article

• c# class naming standards/guidelines

  - by Ben

  Over the years I've used various naming conventions for services in my applications for example: [ClassName]Service [ClassName]Manager [ClassName]Factory [ClassName]Provider [ClassName]Helper I generally only use the "Helper" suffix for utility classes that have no external dependencies. However I find that there is a bit of a cross-over between the others, and wondered if there was any recommendations/standards/guidelines on what to use and when?

  Read the article

• Naming conventions for language file keys

  - by VirtuosiMedia

  What is your strategy for naming conventions for the keys in language files used for localization? We have a team that is going to conversion of a project to multiple languages and would like to have some guidelines to follow. As an example, usually the files end up being a series of key/value pairs, with the key being the placeholder in the template for the language specific value. 'Username': 'Username', 'Enter Username': 'Enter your username here'

  Read the article

• SOAP Web Service method naming conventions

  - by dbguy

  Consider a Web Service (e.g. SOAP-based) that has an operation which accepts a bulk of data from the client. From the server's point of view it is receiving data, but from the client's point of view it's sending data. How should that operation be named? The options are ImportData ExportData / SendData Is there a de facto standard for naming these things? How do web services usually name these? Thank you for your opinions.

  Read the article

• Case Class naming convention

  - by KChaloux

  In my recent adventures in Scala, I've found case classes to be a really nice alternative to enums when I need to include a bit of logic or several values with them. I often find myself writing structures that look like this, however: object Foo{ case class Foo(name: String, value: Int, other: Double) val BAR = Foo("bar", 1, 1.0) val BAZ = Foo("baz", 2, 1.5) val QUUX = Foo("quux", 3, 1.75) } I'm primarily worried here about the naming of the object and the case class. Since they're the same thing, I end up with Foo.Foo to get to the inner class. Would it be wise to name the case class something along the lines of FooCase instead? I'm not sure if the potential ambiguity might mess with the type system if I have to do anything with subtypes or inheritance.

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >