[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Actions Table Error
Dan has VERY good points below. Standardized action names are a must. And they need to be
decided upon from the get go. Any changes to an action name directly affects code. So,
it's one of the areas we need to be most careful with, when deciding what to call things,
etc. In the case of the user actions, we should definately change them, as they are far
too ambiguous. Whoever changes it (wait for me, or just go ahead and do it) needs to be
sure to update ALL points in the user forms that referance that action name. Not too
difficult, just cannot be overlooked.
Now. As for Dan's comment on NOACT... I have had some thoughts (actually - sparked again
by Dan's comment).
To me, it makes ZERO sense to have to supply an action just to get information from an
object. And, with our ever-evolving design, it's no longer relavent. We COULD do away
with the action parameter for fetch_object(), and thus eliminate NOACT, and any such hacks
that may evolve later. Now, this only affects a few pieces of code, namely render.php3
which can be easily fixed. I'm not sure if it would affect what you've done Dan, which is
why I held off from persuing it. You'll have to give me your opinion.
Thoughts/comments?
Jason
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 02:18:07PM -0400, Daniel E. Markle wrote:
> I noticed 3 actions in the ObjectActions table that have names that do not
> match our naming conventions at all:
>
> Edit (24)
> Update (25)
> Create (26)
>
> According to the naming scheme we have been trying to use, these should be:
>
> EditUser
> UpdateUser
> CreateUser
>
> We have had to violate this naming scheme on occasion when the resulting text
> didn't make any sense, but in this case it works ideally. If we allow generic
> names like this to continue to exist, the system will get more and more
> confusing to figure out.
>
> Which brings me to the other nonstandard name in this table:
>
> NOACT (13)
>
> It claims to be a no action object, but in reality it is used to do things,
> namely to return the info on an object without doing any action upon it.
> However, it isn't the action that does this, but the objects that actually do
> the info return. As such it may be named just fine, anyone else have an
> opinion?
>
> --
> -------------------
> Daniel E. Markle
> syntax@ashtech.net
> http://www.ashtech.net/syntax
> -------------------
--
Jason Pincin
Linux Knowledge Base Project Leader (http://www.linuxkb.org/)
http://vodka.linuxkb.org/~chardros/