<div dir="ltr">> <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I know executables might be the </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">right name now, but it always has the long standing meaning of binary executables which might get you confused when </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">reading the method name.</span><div>
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I can see your point about mixing this up with binary executables, but OTOH I'd expect people to get more and more used to applying the term to methods/constructors, given that it is also used in the JDK 8 with that meaning. The JavaDoc further clarifies forExecutables()'s purpose.</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">> </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">If we rename the API we really should rename the whole feature and call it "Executable validation". Do we want to go this far?</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Hmmm, I think this would be indeed a step too far.</span></div><div style>
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">IMO the general concept and its manifestation in method/type identifiers don't have to match 100%. In some cases we speak about "method and constructor constraints" anyways, and in section 4.5 we also explicitly say "</span>the term "method constraint" refers to
constraints declared on methods as well as constructors." So I think we don't have to adapt the spec wording, but IMO using the correct method/type names would be beneficial for the consistency of the API (which is what most users work with).</div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">--Gunnar</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/1/8 Hardy Ferentschik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hardy@hibernate.org" target="_blank">hardy@hibernate.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I have to back up Emmanuel here. 'forMethods' resonates much better and I think that just reading this method name<br>
users would have a better idea on what this is about compared to ' forExecutables'. I know executables might be the<br>
right name now, but it always has the long standing meaning of binary executables which might get you confused when<br>
reading the method name.<br>
<br>
I have another issue with the renaming. As you know by now I am a big fan consistency, but how far do we want to take it?<br>
If we rename the API we really should rename the whole feature and call it "Executable validation". Do we want to go this far?<br>
My gut feeling is no in which case I would also recommend to stick to 'Validator#forMethods()' in the API.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--Hardy<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 4 Jan 2013, at 11:31 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <<a href="mailto:emmanuel@hibernate.org">emmanuel@hibernate.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I like forMethods because it resonates faster on people's mind. But I<br>
> can live and get forExecutables grow on me. So I'm neutral.<br>
><br>
> Emmanuel<br>
><br>
> On Fri 2013-01-04 11:05, Gunnar Morling wrote:<br>
>> Hi all,<br>
>><br>
>> While working on the TCK, I came across our new method<br>
>> Validator#forMethods() which allows to validate method and constructor<br>
>> parameters/return values.<br>
>><br>
>> Given that we introduced the term "executable" when referring to both<br>
>> methods and constructors, I wondered whether the method should better be<br>
>> named "forExecutables()".<br>
>><br>
>> Thoughts?<br>
>><br>
>> --Gunnar<br>
><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org">beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org">beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
beanvalidation-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org">beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>