Re: Diamond back refactoring (again, I know...)
From: Johnny Elvers (johnny_at_elvers.dk)
Date: 09/23/04
- Next message: Will DeWitt Jr.: "Re: Microsoft launches express product line in India"
- Previous message: Hrvoje Brozovic: "Re: Insane pricing at shop.borland.com..."
- In reply to: Jim Cooper: "Re: Diamond back refactoring (again, I know...)"
- Next in thread: Jim Cooper: "Re: Diamond back refactoring (again, I know...)"
- Reply: Jim Cooper: "Re: Diamond back refactoring (again, I know...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 23 Sep 2004 11:41:28 -0700
On 23-09-2004 Jim Cooper wrote:
>
>Extract Method is the most important one, IMO. I know there are a lot
>Corbin would like to do, so we'll have to see.
>
Agreed.
Especially when writing libraries renaming in a non local scope is more
damaging than useful. Extracting a method will by default occur on a
local scope and be of no harm in that context.
The first two class level refactorings I mentioned, "Extract SubClass"
and "Extract SuperClass", are potentially harmful as well. The extract
ancestor class should be safe though.
Even so I must say I find renaming quite useful, in a non library
context, since classes are merely specialized fragments of a greater
whole and thereby easily subject to change (if just by name).
Regards,
Johnny
-- Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again. - Franklin P. Jones
- Next message: Will DeWitt Jr.: "Re: Microsoft launches express product line in India"
- Previous message: Hrvoje Brozovic: "Re: Insane pricing at shop.borland.com..."
- In reply to: Jim Cooper: "Re: Diamond back refactoring (again, I know...)"
- Next in thread: Jim Cooper: "Re: Diamond back refactoring (again, I know...)"
- Reply: Jim Cooper: "Re: Diamond back refactoring (again, I know...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|