From: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 1/7] module api: export box_tuple_validate
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:19:03 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201010011903.dwljzqfr3yyiidvw@tkn_work_nb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a898519b-d4e4-6ccf-a5e1-d24d8b17984a@tarantool.org>
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 10:11:05PM +0200, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> On 09.10.2020 03:11, Alexander Turenko wrote:
> >>> +int
> >>> +box_tuple_validate(box_tuple_format_t *format, box_tuple_t *tuple);
> >>
> >> 2. OCD mode on. I would propose either make tuple the first
> >> argument, or rename it to box_tuple_format_validate_tuple().
> >> So as to be consistent with our agreement, that if something
> >> is a method of <type>, then the <type> argument goes first,
> >> and the method name is <type>_<action>.
> >>
> >> I see we currently have in the public API the functions:
> >>
> >> box_tuple_validate - your new function, a bit
> >> inconsistent.
> >>
> >> box_tuple_validate_key_parts - this should have been
> >> box_key_def_validate_tuple from the beginning,
> >> but we can't do anything about it now.
> >
> > We can. It is part of my patchset.
>
> Then lets do it.
Aye!
>
> >> box_key_def_validate_key - correct. Key_def goes first,
> >> and the name is consistent.
> >>
> >> So if you will make box_tuple_validate consistent, we will have
> >> more correct signatures (2/3) than incorrect, for validation
> >> methods at least.
> >
> > So, if we'll apply all your suggestions, the key_def module API will
> > contain the following functions:
> >
> > | Function | Consumer | Name variants (for history) |
> > | ---------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------- |
> > | box_key_def_new() | already present | |
> > | box_key_part_def_create() | key_def module | |
> > | box_key_def_new_v2() | key_def module | box_key_def_new_ex() |
> > | box_key_def_dump_parts() | key_def module | |
> > | box_key_def_merge() | key_def module | |
> > | box_key_def_dup() | merger module | |
> > | box_key_def_delete() | already present | |
> > | box_key_def_validate_tuple() | key_def module | box_tuple_validate_key_parts() |
> > | box_tuple_compare() | already present | |
> > | box_tuple_compare_with_key() | already present | |
> > | box_key_def_extract_key() | key_def module | box_tuple_extract_key_{ex,v2}() |
> > | box_key_def_validate_key() | key_def module | |>
> >
> > All functions around key_defs and tuples are prefixed with 'box_key_def_',
> > except box_tuple_compare*(), which are already present.
> >
> > If we'll follow current internal naming:
> >
> > | Function | Name variants (may fit better) |
> > | ------------------------------ | ------------------------------ |
> > | box_key_def_new() | |
> > | box_key_part_def_create() | |
> > | box_key_def_new_v2() | |
> > | box_key_def_dump_parts() | |
> > | box_key_def_merge() | |
> > | box_key_def_dup() | |
> > | box_key_def_delete() | |
> > | box_tuple_validate_key_parts() | box_tuple_validate_key() |
> > | box_tuple_compare() | |
> > | box_tuple_compare_with_key() | |
> > | box_tuple_extract_key_v2() | |
> > | box_key_def_validate_key() | box_validate_key() |
> >
> > Here functions that operate on key_def itself are prefixed with
> > 'box_key_def_', but functions that operate on tuples using a key
> > definition are named 'box_tuple_<action>()' (generally, see below).
>
> Tuple validation methods operate on key_def in the same extent as
> on the tuples.
Yea, I just tried to find a more precise pattern in the internal naming
that may be useful for us here.
>
> > The exception is box_key_def_validate_key(), but we can rename it to
> > box_validate_key(). And also drop '_parts' from
> > box_tuple_validate_key_parts() (because it meaningless):
> >
> >
> > | Function |
> > | ------------------------------ |
> > | box_key_def_new() |
> > | box_key_part_def_create() |
> > | box_key_def_new_v2() |
> > | box_key_def_dump_parts() |
> > | box_key_def_merge() |
> > | box_key_def_dup() |
> > | box_key_def_delete() |
> > | box_tuple_validate_key() |
> > | box_tuple_compare() |
> > | box_tuple_compare_with_key() |
> > | box_tuple_extract_key_v2() |
> > | box_validate_key() |
> >
> > Isn't that nice?
>
> It is fine. As long as all methods belong to a type and have its
> name as a prefix. I don't mind if tuple validation and key extraction
> methods will belong to box_tuple except box_key_def.
>
> What looks inconsistent is box_validate_key(). It seems it does not
> belong to anything.
>
> If we rename it to box_key_def_validate_key(), we need to rename
> box_tuple_validate_key() to box_key_def_validate_tuple() to be
> consistent in who validates whom.
>
> If we rename it to box_key_validate(), then it is inconsistent about
> not having a 'key' type. And will become wrong if we will ever introduce
> a key type.
Looks meagingful for me. Since it anyway breaks the attempt to use
'box_tuple_<action>()' naming for keydefish actions on tuples, I would
also choose box_key_def_extract_key() instead of
box_tuple_extract_key_v2().
The result becomes the same as in the first table above :)
| Function |
| ------------------------------ |
| box_key_def_new() |
| box_key_part_def_create() |
| box_key_def_new_v2() |
| box_key_def_dump_parts() |
| box_key_def_merge() |
| box_key_def_dup() |
| box_key_def_delete() |
| box_key_def_validate_tuple() |
| box_tuple_compare() |
| box_tuple_compare_with_key() |
| box_key_def_extract_key() |
| box_key_def_validate_key() |
All names are prefixed, most with the same prefix (except
box_tuple_compare*()). Okay for me. I'll update my patchset to follow
this agreement.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-10 1:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-24 17:00 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 0/7] RFC: module api: extend for external merger Lua module Timur Safin
2020-09-24 17:00 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 1/7] module api: export box_tuple_validate Timur Safin
2020-09-28 22:20 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-02 12:24 ` Timur Safin
2020-10-09 1:11 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-10-09 20:11 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-10 1:19 ` Alexander Turenko [this message]
2020-09-29 5:25 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-10-05 7:35 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-24 17:00 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 2/7] module api: export box_key_def_dup Timur Safin
2020-09-28 22:21 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-29 5:03 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-29 23:19 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-01 3:05 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-10-02 12:25 ` Timur Safin
2020-10-02 12:26 ` Timur Safin
2020-09-24 17:00 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 3/7] module api: luaT_newthread Timur Safin
2020-09-28 22:21 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-02 12:27 ` Timur Safin
2020-10-02 21:48 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-29 6:25 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-10-02 12:26 ` Timur Safin
2020-10-02 12:53 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-29 15:19 ` Igor Munkin
2020-10-02 16:12 ` Timur Safin
2020-10-03 16:57 ` Igor Munkin
2020-09-24 17:00 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 4/7] module api: luaL_register_module & luaL_register_type Timur Safin
2020-09-28 22:21 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-29 5:09 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-29 23:20 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-30 6:31 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-30 6:33 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-10-02 16:14 ` Timur Safin
2020-09-29 8:03 ` Igor Munkin
2020-09-29 23:21 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-02 16:14 ` Timur Safin
2020-10-03 3:24 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-24 17:00 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 5/7] module api: luaT_temp_luastate & luaT_release_temp_luastate Timur Safin
2020-09-28 22:21 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-29 5:17 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-29 23:21 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-01 3:35 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-29 15:10 ` Igor Munkin
2020-09-29 21:03 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-29 23:23 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-30 10:09 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-10-01 15:06 ` Igor Munkin
2020-10-03 2:16 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-10-02 12:24 ` Timur Safin
2020-09-24 17:00 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 6/7] module api: luaL_checkibuf & luaL_checkconstchar Timur Safin
2020-09-28 22:21 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-29 5:53 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-09-29 23:25 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-01 3:00 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-10-02 16:14 ` Timur Safin
2020-10-02 21:48 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-08 13:50 ` Timur Safin
2020-09-24 17:00 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 7/7] module api: luaL_cdata_iscallable Timur Safin
2020-09-28 22:21 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-29 5:19 ` Alexander Turenko
2020-10-02 16:14 ` Timur Safin
2020-10-02 12:23 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 0/7] RFC: module api: extend for external merger Lua module Timur Safin
2020-10-02 21:49 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-03 2:54 ` Alexander Turenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201010011903.dwljzqfr3yyiidvw@tkn_work_nb \
--to=alexander.turenko@tarantool.org \
--cc=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
--cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \
--subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 1/7] module api: export box_tuple_validate' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox