CODEWITHSUNDEEP
design-patternsnaming
Thorarin
Thorarin

Reputation: 48486

Misuse of the term "Initialize"?

I'm working on a redesign for part of an existing application and I'm having a bit of an issue with the toughest programming problem of all: naming things correctly :)

I have a class (A) which can create instances of B. Each A has an active B object. To activate the object, it calls a method Initialize on B, passing a reference to itself. B will check the state of A, subscribe to changes in A, etc.

At some point, A can decide it no longer needs B, at which point B goes into a pool of objects that can be reused. A different instance of A can decide to pick up the existing B object instead of creating one.

When this happens, the Initialize method is called again on the existing object B.

Now, I have the feeling that this could be confusing because people will probably expect initialization to happen only once. Is there a better generic term I could use in this situation? I would also like to introduce a complement of the Initialize method, that tells B it can stop paying attention to A.

Upvotes: 1

Views: 43

Answers (2)

tcarvin
tcarvin

Reputation: 10855

In similar situations I have used Attach() and Dettach() to represent a transitory connection between objects.

bInstance.Attach(this)

and later when putting it back in the pool

bInstance.Dettach()

Upvotes: 0

ScoPi
ScoPi

Reputation: 1195

I think you already hit on the term in your description:

To activate the object, it calls a method Initialize on B, passing a reference to itself.

Activate and Deactivate would be appropriate method names.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions