Naming conventions for bool methods?

[Markus Dehmann]

BTW, how do you handle naming conventions for getters/setters of bools? I
use is/set, but it sounds stupid sometimes:

boolean dataInited;
boolean isDataInited();
void setDataInited(boolean inited);

Or worse:
boolean useMagicAlgorithm;
boolean isUseMagicAlgorithm();
void setUseMagicAlgorithm();

I could say
boolean usingMagicAlgorithm;
boolean isUsingMagicAlgorithm();
which would sound better.

Any help appreciated!
Markus

 

[Ryan Stewart]

BTW, how do you handle naming conventions for getters/setters of bools? I
use is/set, but it sounds stupid sometimes:

[...]
is/set is the standard way of doing it. If your variable names don't work with
it, they probably need changing.

 

[Andrew McDonagh]

BTW, how do you handle naming conventions for getters/setters of bools? I
use is/set, but it sounds stupid sometimes:

boolean dataInited;
boolean isDataInited();

or..

boolean hasDataBeenInitialised()

void setDataInited(boolean inited);

DataInitialisationIs(boolean initialised)

Or worse:
boolean useMagicAlgorithm;
boolean isUseMagicAlgorithm();

boolean shouldUseMagicAlgorithm();

 

[Ryan Stewart]

[...]

boolean hasDataBeenInitialised()
[...]
DataInitialisationIs(boolean initialised)
[...]
boolean shouldUseMagicAlgorithm();

[...]
You can certainly name your methods anything you like, but a tool/library such
as JSTL that looks for getters and setters wouldn't find these.

 

[Andrew McDonagh]

[...]

boolean hasDataBeenInitialised()

[...]

DataInitialisationIs(boolean initialised)

[...]

boolean shouldUseMagicAlgorithm();

[...]
You can certainly name your methods anything you like, but a tool/library such
as JSTL that looks for getters and setters wouldn't find these.

Correct, but the OP wasn't asking about that - was they?

I just thought they wanted some examples of what others here had used
before.

 

[Ryan Stewart]

Correct, but the OP wasn't asking about that - was they?

I just thought they wanted some examples of what others here had used before.

He didn't ask for anything more specific than "naming conventions". I was simply
pointing out that there may be other considerations than what you or I think
looks "nice".

 

[Joona I Palaste]

You can certainly name your methods anything you like, but a tool/library such
as JSTL that looks for getters and setters wouldn't find these.

That's just stupid practice, I think. Even in Log4J the parameters for
logger and appender implementations are handled by creating methods
named "get..." or "set..." followed by the parameter name. I haven't
looked at the Log4J source, but I am fairly sure it uses Reflection to
handle the method invocations. If I had designed the API, I would have
made only two methods:
void setParameter(String name, Object value);
Object getParameter(String name);

 

[sanjay manohar]

pleaseUseMagicAlgorithm()

Where are your manners, all of you?

 

[Alan Krueger]

BTW, how do you handle naming conventions for getters/setters of bools? I
use is/set, but it sounds stupid sometimes:

boolean dataInited;
boolean isDataInited();
void setDataInited(boolean inited);

How about simply "isInitialized"?