W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Suggestion to change {safety} to {safe}

From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:34:57 -0700
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: "John Kaputin (gmail)" <jakaputin@gmail.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, woden-dev@ws.apache.org
Message-id: <447DD3C1.9020006@sun.com>

How about {safety asserted}?


Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Hi John,
> the difference between {safety} and {required} is that for the latter,
> false is not true, whereas for {safety} false is unclaimed. An operation
> that doesn't claim to be safe can still be.
> Therefore {safe} could be misleading. However, I'm not sure that
> {safety} is non-misleading enough here. 8-)
> Jacek
> On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 22:43 +0100, John Kaputin (gmail) wrote:
>> A bit late in the day (sorry), but I'd like to suggest renaming the
>> extension property {safety} to {safe} to better describe one of the
>> binary states (safe vs unsafe) of this property, which in turn will
>> map neatly to a boolean API method like isSafe(). It also reflects the
>> discussion of this property in the spec which talks about operations
>> being 'safe' or 'unsafe'.  getSafety() is cumbersome and isSafety()
>> doesn't sound quite right.
>> As an example, the {required} boolean property describes a binary
>> state (required vs not required) that maps neatly to the boolean
>> method isRequired().
>> Our options in Woden are to just adopt the isXXX() convention for a
>> boolean property {XXX} and not worry about how it sounds or diverge
>> from the exact property-to-method naming convention we have been using
>> and construct a more suitable boolean method name (i.e. for the
>> boolean properties {http cookies} and {http location ignore uncited}).
>> regards,
>> John Kaputin.
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 17:35:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:58 UTC