- 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
How about {safety asserted}? Thanks, Roberto 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