axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Names
Date Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:29:10 GMT
Russell Butek wrote:
>
> Just my 2 nearly worthless cents.  I would much rather you didn't prefix
> all names with "Axis".  It's redundant.
>
> I've programmed to plenty of frameworks that had classes like
> com.company.product.ProductThis and com.company.product.ProductThat and it
> was just a nuisance to have to type those few unnecessary letters over and
> over.  Keeping the class names simple doesn't cause conflicts.  At most it
> might cause a bit of confusion.  But I always explicitly list classes in my
> import statements (I despise "import com.company.product.*") so if I don't
> remember where a class comes from, all it takes is a simple quick glance at
> the imports list to find out.  And if there are two classes with the same
> name in any given implementation, then they both must be fully qualified;
> no confusion there.

+1

Here's a previous post of mine where I poked fun at a similar thing:

>robj        01/05/31 02:39:35
>>
>>  Added:       java/src/org/apache/axis/client/http HTTPAdminClient.java
>
>Can we rename this to org.apache.axis.client.http.OrgAxisHTTPAdminClientApache.java instead?
>
>Or better yet, how about: org.apache.axis.client.http.Admin.java?

The real question is: how can we get clarity and precision without
introducing unnecessary redundancy?

Going back to Dug's original example: Message.java.  What is unique about
that representation of a message?  It certainly has to be something more
than "this is the definition of a message that happens to have been defined
by the contributors to the Axis project".

- Sam Ruby


Mime
View raw message