|
|
|
|
|
by ahartmetz
23 days 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 |
|
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 :)