[asterisk-dev] [Code Review]: ConfbridgeActionExec AMI Command

Tony Mountifield tony at softins.co.uk
Mon May 14 03:45:31 CDT 2012

In article <20120512170125.16353.17778 at hotblack.digium.com>,
Matt Jordan <reviewboard at asterisk.org> wrote:
> > On May 11, 2012, 9:55 a.m., Olle E Johansson wrote:
> > > Just a short note "ConfbridgeActionExec" is too complex as a name. "ConfbridgeAction" or
> "ConfbridgeExec" - but not a hybrid, please :-)
> > > 
> > > /O
> I was going to change this to ConfbridgeAction last night, but this morning I thought about
> it some more.  Typically, names of AMI Actions that involve an application include the
> application name and some verb indicating the action to be taken, e.g., ConfbridgeListRooms,
> MeetmeMute, QueueAdd, etc.  There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but in general
> this approach seems to make sense from the perspective that an AMI action *does* something,
> as opposed to it representing an object (which would take a noun form).
> Where this is all going is that neither ConfbridgeAction nor ConfbridgeExec tell you what
> the action is doing.  ConfbridgeAction implies an object as opposed to an action that is
> performed.  ConfbridgeExec does imply that something is performed, but not what.  I'll admit
> that ConfbridgeActionExec doesn't provide a lot more information, but at least the concept
> of actions exist in the ConfBridge application, and since this command - by definition - is
> generic, there's only so much information that can be conveyed.
> As far as the issue of name complexity goes, looking at our current AMI actions, this is not
> the most egregious example of a long AMI action name (that prize goes to
> ConfbridgeSetSingleVideoSrc).  While I'm not a proponent of continuing bad practices on the
> basis of historical precedent, I'm not convinced this is a bad practice - at the very least,
> the action name tells you exactly what it does.
> So - I'm inclined to keep it as ConfbridgeActionExec, unless there is a compelling reason
> that I'm missing or sufficient outcry.

In the examples you gave, the verb follows the application, and then any
object or qualifier follows the verb, e.g. ConfbridgeListRooms,

So by that standard, does it want to be ConfbridgeExecAction instead?

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony at softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony at mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

More information about the asterisk-dev mailing list