Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 15:28 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> If the bottom line is not to use either in such cases I am fine with
> them
> but if the line gets too long it is not my problem then. :-)
>
You need to find the right balance.
The problem with long names or long lines is readability, our eyes can
move on the screen only so mush sideways before it becomes annoying
And the length is subjective I presume.
For me it starts to be annoying after 120 characters so I will stick
with 120 ;-) .
> I can shorten names but it makes sense only up to the point
> when name makes sense.
> If name starts to turn into a sequence of the letters hard to
> interpret
> the whole point is lost.
>
If you can use "SEDO" you can use anything :-)
Yes and no. Things like SSSD, ELAPI, NSS, PAM become their own concepts
pretty soon. I was thinking in this case that the name would stick and we
would just use it. I had my reasons to believe that it might happen.
But in general you are right, until it gets known and accepted it is
a sequence of letters that does not make sense for people.
> I prefer meaningful names with the interface prefix.
> If because of that line gets too long so be it.
>
With moderation everything is acceptable.
The whole question comes when there are colliding rules.
People then make decisions. Sometimes other approve the chosen
path sometimes not.
This is the case when I saw a problem when the line was still getting too
long even with the minimal meaningful name that I could come up.
Creating more definitive rules would avoid such situations.
This is what I am trying to accomplish.
So far I see that spelling out names takes precedence over the length rule.
This is all I needed to know.
--
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal
Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.
-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/