Dataflow: renaming proposal

Submitted by Sylvain Joyeux on Wed, 2009-04-01 14:00

I presented the new RTT dataflow thing to one of my new colleagues that will
work on the architecture with me. In the discussion, I realized (again !) that
ReadPort and WritePort are misleading names, because their meaning differ if
you are looking from inside the component or outside it.

During my discussion with Theo, I actually noticed that Input and Output were
sounding MUCH better to me.

I'd therefore like to rename ReadPort and WritePort into InputPort and
OutputPort (respectively). The method names (read for InputPort and write for
OutputPort) would not change as a little poll among my colleagues showed that
they liked it better than get() and put()

What do you guys think ?

Sylvain

‹ Installation Troubles Programme of "Orocos Workshop" at EURON Annual Meeting in Leuven ›
»

Dataflow: renaming proposal

Submitted by sspr on Wed, 2009-04-01 19:05.

On Wednesday 01 April 2009 15:58:37 Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
> I presented the new RTT dataflow thing to one of my new colleagues that
> will work on the architecture with me. In the discussion, I realized (again
> !) that ReadPort and WritePort are misleading names, because their meaning
> differ if you are looking from inside the component or outside it.
>
> During my discussion with Theo, I actually noticed that Input and Output
> were sounding MUCH better to me.
>
> I'd therefore like to rename ReadPort and WritePort into InputPort and
> OutputPort (respectively). The method names (read for InputPort and write
> for OutputPort) would not change as a little poll among my colleagues
> showed that they liked it better than get() and put()
>
> What do you guys think ?

In case anyone cared or thought it would influence matters: +1

Peter

»

Dataflow: renaming proposal

Submitted by markus.klotzbuecher on Wed, 2009-04-01 17:10.

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:58:37PM +0200, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
> I presented the new RTT dataflow thing to one of my new colleagues that will
> work on the architecture with me. In the discussion, I realized (again !) that
> ReadPort and WritePort are misleading names, because their meaning differ if
> you are looking from inside the component or outside it.
>
> During my discussion with Theo, I actually noticed that Input and Output were
> sounding MUCH better to me.
>
> I'd therefore like to rename ReadPort and WritePort into InputPort and
> OutputPort (respectively). The method names (read for InputPort and write for
> OutputPort) would not change as a little poll among my colleagues showed that
> they liked it better than get() and put()
>
> What do you guys think ?

A perfect day for bikeshedding: +1

Regards
Markus

»

Dataflow: renaming proposal

Submitted by Leopold Palomo-... on Wed, 2009-04-01 17:00.

A Dimecres 01 Abril 2009, Sylvain Joyeux va escriure:
> I presented the new RTT dataflow thing to one of my new colleagues that
> will work on the architecture with me. In the discussion, I realized (again
> !) that ReadPort and WritePort are misleading names, because their meaning
> differ if you are looking from inside the component or outside it.
>
> During my discussion with Theo, I actually noticed that Input and Output
> were sounding MUCH better to me.
>
> I'd therefore like to rename ReadPort and WritePort into InputPort and
> OutputPort (respectively). The method names (read for InputPort and write
> for OutputPort) would not change as a little poll among my colleagues
> showed that they liked it better than get() and put()
>
> What do you guys think ?
>

+1

»

Dataflow: renaming proposal

Submitted by snrkiwi on Wed, 2009-04-01 15:10.

On Apr 1, 2009, at 09:58 , Sylvain Joyeux wrote:

> I presented the new RTT dataflow thing to one of my new colleagues
> that will
> work on the architecture with me. In the discussion, I realized
> (again !) that
> ReadPort and WritePort are misleading names, because their meaning
> differ if
> you are looking from inside the component or outside it.
>
> During my discussion with Theo, I actually noticed that Input and
> Output were
> sounding MUCH better to me.
>
> I'd therefore like to rename ReadPort and WritePort into InputPort and
> OutputPort (respectively). The method names (read for InputPort and
> write for
> OutputPort) would not change as a little poll among my colleagues
> showed that
> they liked it better than get() and put()
>
> What do you guys think ?

+1

»

Dataflow: renaming proposal

Submitted by klaas on Wed, 2009-04-01 14:05.

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
> I presented the new RTT dataflow thing to one of my new colleagues that will
> work on the architecture with me. In the discussion, I realized (again !) that
> ReadPort and WritePort are misleading names, because their meaning differ if
> you are looking from inside the component or outside it.
>
> During my discussion with Theo, I actually noticed that Input and Output were
> sounding MUCH better to me.
>
> I'd therefore like to rename ReadPort and WritePort into InputPort and
> OutputPort (respectively). The method names (read for InputPort and write for
> OutputPort) would not change as a little poll among my colleagues showed that
> they liked it better than get() and put()

+1

k

»

Dataflow: renaming proposal

Submitted by fosini on Wed, 2009-04-01 15:05.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Klaas Gadeyne <klaas [dot] gadeyne [..] ...> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
> > I presented the new RTT dataflow thing to one of my new colleagues that
> will
> > work on the architecture with me. In the discussion, I realized (again !)
> that
> > ReadPort and WritePort are misleading names, because their meaning differ
> if
> > you are looking from inside the component or outside it.
> >
> > During my discussion with Theo, I actually noticed that Input and Output
> were
> > sounding MUCH better to me.
> >
> > I'd therefore like to rename ReadPort and WritePort into InputPort and
> > OutputPort (respectively). The method names (read for InputPort and write
> for
> > OutputPort) would not change as a little poll among my colleagues showed
> that
> > they liked it better than get() and put()
>
> +1

When we refer to ports in conversations, we have found ourselves using the
input/output naming convention instead of the read/write one. It seems that
it is more intuitive to think of ports in terms of input/output (at least in
our conversation subjects). Just wanted to share the anecdote, although I
would have no problem if the read/write convention had to stay for legacy
reasons.

Adolfo.

> k
>
> --
> Orocos-Dev mailing list
> Orocos-Dev [..] ...
> http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev
>
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
>
>

»

Dataflow: renaming proposal

Submitted by bruyninc on Wed, 2009-04-01 14:25.

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Klaas Gadeyne wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
>> I presented the new RTT dataflow thing to one of my new colleagues that will
>> work on the architecture with me. In the discussion, I realized (again !) that
>> ReadPort and WritePort are misleading names, because their meaning differ if
>> you are looking from inside the component or outside it.
>>
>> During my discussion with Theo, I actually noticed that Input and Output were
>> sounding MUCH better to me.
>>
>> I'd therefore like to rename ReadPort and WritePort into InputPort and
>> OutputPort (respectively). The method names (read for InputPort and write for
>> OutputPort) would not change as a little poll among my colleagues showed that
>> they liked it better than get() and put()
>
> +1
>
> k

+1

Herman

>

»