-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
UDF CaMeL cASe consistency issues #368
Comments
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.
👍 |
I think my vote is for |
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? |
What I meant was that |
FYI - Did some quick research and found Scalastyle does not seem to support custom rule configuration (just on or off), so it might be good to include a short list of style rules in the README (I doubt there are many). Google style guide wants the former style due to the |
Video chat with @ruebot and @ianmilligan1 - conclusion: rename |
- Replace ExtractBaseDomain with ExtractDomain - Closes #367 - Address bug in ArcTest; RemoveHTML -> RemoveHttpHeader - Closes #369 - Wraps RemoveHttpHeader and RemoveHTML for use in data frames. - Partially addresses #238 - Updates tests where necessary - Punts on #368 UDF CaMeL cASe consistency issues
- Add ScalaDF example for: Extract Plain Text Without HTTP Headers - See also: - archivesunleashed/aut#368 - archivesunleashed/aut#374 - archivesunleashed/aut#370
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?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: