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

[Matthew Jordan]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Mountifield" <tony at softins.co.uk>
> To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 3:45:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-dev] [Code Review]: ConfbridgeActionExec AMI Command
> 
> 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,
> ConfbridgeSetSingleVideoSrc.
> 
> So by that standard, does it want to be ConfbridgeExecAction instead?
> 
> Cheers
> Tony

That's a good point - I'll change it ConfbridgeExecAction.

--
Matthew Jordan
Digium, Inc. | Software Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at: http://digium.com & http://asterisk.org