You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> on 2003/05/20 19:30:05 UTC
Regex naming convention
> we have to consider that there will be a broad spectrum of users,
> some of whom will welcome the power of regex matchers, others who
> will run in fright[, and] only concern themselves with string
> comparison matchers
I agree, and we can adopt that as policy. +1
Accordingly, I would like to adopt a naming convention, rather than have ad
hoc naming, to both help users distinguish, and to provide guidance to
developers.
We have just received a recipient matcher based upon regex matching. Cesar
called his matcher RecipientMatch. Do we want RecipientIs and
RecipientIsRegex, HostIs and HostIsRegex, AttachmentFileNameIs and
AttachmentFileNameIsRegex, etc.? Note: I am proposing just a naming
pattern, not actual planning any of those classes.
Please advise, so that I can commit his new code.
My preference is for the Regex suffix.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Regex naming convention
Posted by Serge Knystautas <se...@lokitech.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Regex suffix.
+1
--
Serge Knystautas
President
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com/
p. 1.301.656.5501
e. sergek@lokitech.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Regex naming convention
Posted by Hontvari Jozsef <ho...@solware.com>.
> RecipientIsRegex, HostIs and HostIsRegex, AttachmentFileNameIs and
> AttachmentFileNameIsRegex, etc.?
I thought as much. It is reasonable to have two version, both for user
friendliness, and maybe for better resource usage. And that is a natural
naming convention, as I remember I have seen similar naming several times.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>
To: "James Developers List" <ja...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 7:30 PM
Subject: Regex naming convention
> > we have to consider that there will be a broad spectrum of users,
> > some of whom will welcome the power of regex matchers, others who
> > will run in fright[, and] only concern themselves with string
> > comparison matchers
>
> I agree, and we can adopt that as policy. +1
>
> Accordingly, I would like to adopt a naming convention, rather than have
ad
> hoc naming, to both help users distinguish, and to provide guidance to
> developers.
>
> We have just received a recipient matcher based upon regex matching.
Cesar
> called his matcher RecipientMatch. Do we want RecipientIs and
> RecipientIsRegex, HostIs and HostIsRegex, AttachmentFileNameIs and
> AttachmentFileNameIsRegex, etc.? Note: I am proposing just a naming
> pattern, not actual planning any of those classes.
>
> Please advise, so that I can commit his new code.
>
> My preference is for the Regex suffix.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org