4 ms·
There is usually a more precise way to express what a manager manages, so Manager is usually just the lazy option that provides very little information. The que
by ahartmetz 4mo ago
There is usually a more precise way to express what a manager manages, so Manager is usually just the lazy option that provides very little information. The question to ask is: What exactly does it manage? Lifetimes? Resource limits? Global configuration? Etc
- spacedcowboy 4mo agoAh, but 'Manager' being vague is a feature, not a bug IMHO. Unless there's a 'ConnectionLifetimeManager' (which, to be honest, seems overkill in my experience), then I expect ConnectionManager to handle that. It's the catch-all, not the specific. The contract I expect it to keep is (as I said above) the holistic view of the system of <item>s that it's managing. That can vary from type to type, but trying to pin down a class to just the exact thing it does is a fools errand (again, IMHO); there is a level of abstraction in naming that is somewhat above the code itself. Manager is the hint, the code is the truth. YMMV I guess. It's worked pretty well for me for the past 40 years or so :)
- ahartmetz 4mo agoConnectionPool, ConnectionInstances, ConnectionLimiter... etc, it depends. There isn't always a great option or it's very difficult to find one.