Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upUDF CaMeL cASe consistency issues #368
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Oh, there's more (UDFs, class, and object names)! Might as well make a list so we have more info on whatever decision we make:
I might have missed some.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I think my vote is for |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I'm confused. So, if I'm I understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that we don't worry about the list I dropped in, which highlight other examples of what you originally raised, and just roll with inconsistency, or resolve just the two you highlighted? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
What I meant was that |
lintool commentedOct 26, 2019
In terms of Scala RDD UDFs, we have:
And:
I can't think of a case when you'd want clean text but want to keep the HTTP headers... so
RemoveHTML
should just callRemoveHttpHeader
.Also, we're mixing camel cases, so it should either be:
RemoveHtml
andRemoveHttpHeader
RemoveHTML
andRemoveHTTPHeader
Note the MiXEd mess we have now.
Option (1) is more conforming to Java practices, but then we have
removePrefixWww
, which just looks odd. Maybe we can rename toRemoveW3Prefix
?We also have
ComputeMD5
andComputeSHA1
, so perhaps option (2) is better?Thoughts?