Inconsistent method naming in LicenseCompareHelper

Bắt đầu với lớp org.spdx.utility.compare.LicenseCompareHelper và Javadoc của lớp này, sau đó lập danh mục các chữ ký phương thức matching và diff hiện có so với ma trận được đề xuất. Xem lại cách các phương thức hiện tại được sử dụng trước khi xác định tên nhất quán, các ủy quyền tương thích và các deprecation. Công việc được xem là hoàn tất khi scheme đặt tên được triển khai mà không xóa các phương thức cũ trước một major release.

Problem Statement

I've found that the names of the various different permutations of the matching methods in the org.spdx.utility.compare.LicenseCompareHelper class are pretty confusing, and wonder if a more consistent naming scheme would be valuable?

This is partly fueled by:

• There is no overall pattern to how the various methods are named, making "at a glance inference of method variations" difficult.
• There are some missing permutations (e.g. see #391).
• There are inconsistencies in how exceptions are referred to (some methods use "LicenseException", while others use "Exception").
• There's conflation of "pure" matching methods (i.e. methods that answer the question "did this text contains one or more licenses / exceptions, and (optionally) if so, which ones?") with the methods that calculate diffs (i.e. methods that answer the question "what, if any, differences exist between this text and a given license / exception?").

It seems to me that the methods in this class fall into a sparse matrix defined by these criteria:

1. Whether the method operates on licenses, or exceptions
2. Whether the method performs exact matching of the text, or "finding" within the text
3. Whether the method considers only one listed license / exception, or multiple listed licenses / exceptions (and in the latter case, whether that's all listed licenses / exceptions, or a subset provided by the caller)
4. Whether the method returns the first match, or all matches
5. Whether the method is concerned with "pure" matching, or calculating differences

Coming up with a systematic naming scheme informed by these criteria has substantial value in helping to communicate how the LicenseCompareHelper class can be used for different matching / diffing scenarios.

A Proposed Naming Scheme

Methods that perform exact matching of the entire text:

Methods that perform finds within the text, but only return the first match:

Methods that perform finds within the text, and return all matches:

Methods that calculate diffs:

Notes:

• Many of these methods will share a common implementation - in fact in many cases they can be implemented as simple delegation calls to other methods (sometimes in a loop).
• Obviously the old method names can't be removed until the next major release of the library, but they could be re-implemented to simply delegate to the new methods, and marked as deprecated before then.
• I don't believe any of the method signatures listed above conflict with existing method signatures, but haven't done an exhaustive check.