Paul Dix wrote a blog post about trying to design an API. Plz go read it, then come back here :)
reads more like spoken language, I don’t think it’s right. What would I do with the result of
entry.sanitized itself? It’s not a meaningful method call without the additional
content call. Either of these seems more like Ruby, or indeed more like code instead of making things more ‘human’:
entry.sanitized_content # API 1 santized(entry.content) # API 2
If Paul really wants his API, a better approach is to mix some
sanitize behaviour into all of the string content that an entry might have. Why should the entry care about sanitizing? Cleaning up strings isn’t the job of that object. Instead, the string itself should be responsible for returning a cleaner version of itself:
entry.content.sanitized # API 3
It seems much more like programming - here’s an entry, now get the content, and now ask that to return a sanitized version of itself.
module Sanitize def sanitize Dryopteris.sanitize(self) end end class Entry def content @content.extend(Sanitize) end # ditto for title, author, etc end
I should add that my prefered solution is actually
API 2, where ‘sanitized’ is a method on some object whose responsibility is to present an entry. But I do have a soft-spot for extending returned values to add behaviour.