Re: DI/wiring
On 4/23/13 9:34 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> writes:
Why aren't those simply setters? Must you go against all convention in
every possible way?
I just had to remember that remark, when I read a method
name of mine that made me smile myself, it was the name
acceptReportAcceptor
. Here is some more context:
public void acceptReportAcceptor( final ReportAcceptor reportAcceptor )
{ this.reportAcceptor = reportAcceptor; }
. But now, honestly, when one sees a hungry man, and gives
him some bread and says:
?Sir, please accept this bread!?
this sound fine to me, while
?Sir, please set this bread!?
sounds strange. In
object.acceptNumber( 2 )
I tell the object to accept the number, but what is
object.setNumber( 2 )
The word "accept" has a different connotation in programming. It is
often used for the visitor pattern. The "get" and "set" words are
referring to "the value of a property."
supposed to mean? How can the object set the number 2?
This makes no sense!
Translating "setNumber" becomes "Set your property called 'number' to
the value '2'"
But I am not a native English speaker. May be I am missing
something here.
Besides the fact that "set" and "get" are convention, they are actually
an integral part of the JavaBean concept, which is far more than just a
convention. Introspector expects get, is, and set prefixes on property
names.
Imagine I would have called the reportAcceptor
?reportSetter?. This would have made no sense to me! This
object is supposed to accept a report, not to set a report!
The report is already ?set? by the caller, the callee is
just asked to kindly consider accepting it!
Why aren't those simply setters?
Actually I do not know the definition of ?setter? that you
take as basis for your question. When do you call something
a setter?
A setter is a method which sets the value of a property. A setter method
starts with the literal "set", and ends with the capitalized camel-case
name of the property. The property *may* be backed by a field, but that
isn't a requirement.
Usually "accept" is an object that can be visited (in the Visitor
Pattern). Generally, classes which can be visited will implement an
abstract "void accept(Visitor visitor)" method, and visitor will
implement an interface with many "visit(???)" methods. One for each
static type of visitable. The accept/visit is needed in languages which
only have single-dispatch polymorphism.
The point is, your use of the word "accept" may cause less confusion to
an English major, but will cause more confusion to the average computer
programmer. You are writing in Java, not in English.
Thanks,
Daniel.