[forge-dev] Add vs New

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:10, George Gastaldi wrote:

> That makes sense, however renaming these commands will break existing 
> scripts. This should be something to be considered for Forge 3.x

does forge 2 not have a notion of aliases or similar that could be used 
to create uniformity but still be backwards compatible ?

/max

>
>
>> Em 13/03/2015, às 19:00, Antonio Goncalves 
>> <antonio.mailing at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm a bit particular on wording because I think that the right word 
>> makes things easier for the new comer. I'm implementing a new UI 
>> command to add an injection point to a class. So, the name of the 
>> command would be cdi-add-injection-point. But then I started to have 
>> a look at the other xxx-add-yyy commands :
>>
>> addon-add-dependency
>> project-add-dependencies
>> project-add-managed-dependencies
>> project-add-repository
>> java-add-annotation
>> constraint-add
>>
>> They all add something, into something already existing. If we take 
>> this definition for granted, shouldn't the following commands be 
>> renamed add instead of new :
>>
>> jpa-new-named-query
>> cdi-new-conversation
>> java-new-enum-const
>> java-new-field
>> java-new-method
>> jpa-new-field
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>
>> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>> _______________________________________________
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev


/max
http://about.me/maxandersen