avalon-phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: MBean suffixed classes
Date Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:02:09 GMT
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:35, Paul Hammant wrote:
>>Huw, Peter, Folks,
>>I have to say I dislike the MBean suffix for JMX enabled beans.  In fact
>>it is my principle objection to JMX (yes I know it is anal).
> JMX does not require it - its just convention. What do you object to exactly - 
> a separate interface or just the suffix. You can quite easily name the 
> interface anything you want and phoenix will handle it gracefully. 
> If it is the interface itselfyou don't like then it would seem I am the only 
> one that likes em ;)


>>Would it be possible to generate them?
> yep. I believe many projects do.

Yes, they do, but please don't.
I strongly think that the code should never use a preprocessor, except 
when it's part of the language semantics (template-based programming).

It's useless, anal and confusing.

Overall, I usually use very descriptive names for my stuff; it makes 
them usually quite long, but I understand them better, ie if I have a 
String that holds an URL, I call it something like 
userDefinedTargetURLString. The last part is always about the behaviour 
of the object.

So MBean for Mbeans is not so bad after all IMHO.

Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message