Developers of Sympa

[IKEDA Soji <address@concealed>]

Hi David and all,

Here is partial reply to your post.  I'll reply to the remainder
later.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:35:16 +0200
David Verdin <address@concealed> wrote:

>         Spools
> 
>   * We will enforce the filesystem spools for now, not the SQL spools,
>     until we have a mechanism to allow both. The reason here is that we
>     know file system spools work whereas SQL spools proved unsafe on our
>     production environment.

How about bulkpacket (formerly bulkmailer) table?  It also has
problem:  The size of receipients_bulkpacket column limits number
of recipients, regardless the value of nrcpt parameter.


>         Naming conventions
> 
>   * Unification of accessors : It's a hard topic, so I'll try to sum it up.
>       o Soji originally rewrote Site/Robot/Family/list and added an
>         AUTOLOAD function allowing to dynamically create function
>         corresponding to configuration parameters,
>       o Guillaume objected to the number of the resulting functions, as
>         well as the double usage of such function: getters and setters ;
>         he argumented for more explicit naming scheme.
>       o A consensus could be :
>           + get_* and set_* for any field belonging to an object. All
>             the fields should be private, being manipulated by these
>             getters/setters,
>           + a "get_parameter" and a "set_parameter" function for each
>             parameter coming from a configuration file
>       o Soji objected that such an organization didn't tackle the
>         question of readonly parameters. This might be simply resolved
>         by a "readonly" flag in the parameter definition, making the
>         program croak if a developper tries to change it. readonly flag
>         would be handled by "set_parameter" function.
>   * I suggest that we try to have a consistent naming for functions and
>     variable. Let's use underscore-separated strings, with no capitals.

I don't have objection to your suggestion on the whole, but I would
like to add a concern:

- Action prefixes with broad meaning should as little be used as
  possible: "get", "make", "put", "set" and so on.  
- Consequently, "get" and "set" should be used only for getters and
  setters.

In fact, by now "get" prefix is used with too various meanings so
that it is hardly meaningful --- What, from which, how, ... does
they "get"?  That's why I didn't prefer to use "get" prefix.

Of course I don't wish to change all naming of existing subs right
now: I wish lax and unhurried transition.

# Although this is not the issue on implementation but naming
# convention, I'd like to state that I don't stick to specific
# implementation such as AUTOLOADing.


Regards,

--- Soji


-- 
株式会社 コンバージョン  セキュリティ&OSSソリューション部   池田荘児
〒231-0004　神奈川県横浜市中区元浜町3-21-2 ヘリオス関内ビル7F
e-mail address@concealed  TEL 045-640-3550
http://www.conversion.co.jp/