Karl Fogel wrote:
> Max Bowsher <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Sorry, I wasn't following this thread and didn't comment before - I've
>> just noticed that such a change was committed in r21067.
>> I would like to object on the grounds that the zero/one/infinity
>> naming scheme is far more intuitive than the LDAP names.
>> This isn't just a reflexive action the change on the first time
>> encountering the LDAP names - I've run into them before, and found
>> them unnecessarily confusing about the precise concepts they refer to.
>> Whilst "onelevel" is reasonable, neither "base" nor "exact"
>> communicate their concept to me as clearly as "depth zero". Ditto for
>> "subtree", which makes me think of selecting just a particular subtree
>> of nodes
>> From underneath the object it is being applied to, not entire tree
>> rooted at the reference object.
> I'm sure this seems trivial to many people, but it's worth getting
> these names right (and doesn't hold anything else up, as they're easy
> to change at any time).
> If we say "tree" instead of "subtree", does that address that
> particular issue, Max? It's still close enough to the LDAP original
> that we'll get the benefit of familiarity.
> "Base" vs "zero" is a little tougher. I personally don't find either
> one much more intuitive than the other, and would like not to differ
> unnecessarily from *some* standard name -- in this case, the LDAP
> name, for consistency with the "onelevel".
"tree" is marginally better than "subtree" in that it is no longer
communicating an implication of sub-selection, but (to me) it is still
unclear, since there is no explicit indication of how far down the tree
you wish to travel - "onelevel" is also a tree, after a fashion.
The concepts of "base depth" or "exact depth" have no intuitive meaning
to me, whilst "zero depth" does.
All-in-all, I'd much rather we stuck with the established DAV standard,
and ignored the LDAP terminology completely.
Received on Mon Aug 14 18:29:05 2006