split users

[Phillip Oldham]

On 13/05/2010 12:47, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 06:00:59PM +0100, Phillip Oldham wrote:
>    
>> On 12/05/2010 15:35, Igor Sysoev wrote:
>>      
>>> The question is: what is the better English name:
>>> users_split
>>> user_split
>>> clients_split
>>> client_split
>>> or something else ?
>>>
>>>        
>> distribute_requests
>> dist_requests
>> split_requests
>> request_split
>>      
> I still considering two initial varaints: user_split or users_split.
> Does "users_split" sound good or not for English ear ?
>    

I believe "client_split" would be better english rather than 
"user_split"; when seeing "user" one would think of a system user, 
whereas "client" is preferrable as something which connects to a system 
(in this case a webserver).

"split_clients" would be even better - this dictates the block's 
*intention* rather than what it "is", which would to mind easier when 
writing the block. Other things could be "split_" also, in future 
modules: "split_backends" for example.

-- 

*Phillip B Oldham*
ActivityHQ
phill at activityhq.com <mailto:phill at theactivitypeople.co.uk>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Policies*

This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above named 
recipient(s) only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in 
error, please reply to this e-mail and highlight the error. No action 
should be taken regarding content, nor must you copy or show them to anyone.

This e-mail has been created in the knowledge that Internet e-mail is 
not a 100% secure communications medium, and we have taken steps to 
ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus. We must 
advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should 
ensure they are completely virus free, and that you understand and 
observe the lack of security when e-mailing us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------