commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Stanley <mstan...@mstanley.net>
Subject Re: [xmlio] Naming
Date Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:31:33 GMT
I don't think they should be split.  If it is a library for helping the 
input/output of XML why separate these into separate projects.  Lets not 
get carried away with small functional libraries.  There should be a 
limit to the size, purpose.   I mean there has to come a point where the 
overhead of a new subproject isn't worth the benefit of the logical 
separation of otherwise related classes.

If the library is
1) not a parser
2) not an XML marshaller
3) not an xml ingester (like digester)
4) not a bean serializer

but rather a utility for inputing and outputting XML documents 
(augmenting SAX with callbacks).

Then it needs a name that reflects that.  I believe the only name I've 
heard so far that doesn't make me think of one of the above is 
"xmlutil", but then again that will open up the project to be the home 
of other xml utility classes beyond input and output.  Is this a goal of 
the project?  Perhaps it should be.

I suggest taking the name "xmlutil" and growing this to an XML utility 
library - in the same family as beanutil, collection, lang, etc.  Input 
and output of XML documents is just one utility that can be offered. 

- Mike

Gary Gregory wrote:

>[xml-in] and [xml-out]
>
>?
>
>Gary
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
>>Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 04:20
>>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>>Subject: Re: [xmlio] Naming
>>
>>Please see the commons charter on naming. Paraphrasing it says that
>>    
>>
>"names
>  
>
>>should be boring and functional, not clever". jazz is clever ;-(  The
>>reasoning is to remove one more barrier to adopting the component.
>>    
>>
>(Note
>  
>
>>that not every commons component follows the rule, betwixt being a
>>    
>>
>good
>  
>
>>example)
>>
>>maybe [sax] for input? (commons-sax)
>>or [fromsax] - (commons-fromsax)
>>maybe [toxml] for output? (commons-toxml)
>>or [tosax]? (commons-tosax)
>>
>>It depends on whether you want to scope/limit yourself to just sax.
>>
>>Should you split? It depends on whether people who use one half are
>>    
>>
>likely
>  
>
>>to use the other really.
>>
>>Stephen
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Daniel Florey" <daniel.florey@web.de>
>>    
>>
>>>After doing the xmlio google thing I agree that this name is really
>>>      
>>>
>used
>  
>
>>in
>>    
>>
>>>so many projects that it would be worth to find another one even if
>>>      
>>>
>I
>  
>
>>like
>>    
>>
>>>it.
>>>As 'xmlio' consists of two parts (importer / exporter) I would
>>>      
>>>
>recommend
>  
>
>>>separating them into two tiny components in order to increase
>>>      
>>>
>>reusability.
>>    
>>
>>>My favourite name for the importer (sax augmentation) would be
>>>      
>>>
>'jazz'.
>  
>
>>As
>>    
>>
>>>you need a sax to play jazz... (Or is it 'just augmented super
>>>      
>>>
>sax'??)
>  
>
>>>The exporter could be simply called XMLWriter as this is what it
>>>      
>>>
>does.
>  
>
>>>Finally I'd like to say that I don't think Digester and xmlio are
>>>      
>>>
>direct
>  
>
>>>competitors as they are very different: xmlio is a simple sax
>>>      
>>>
>extension
>  
>
>>but
>>    
>>
>>>has nothing to do with mapping xml to java objects.
>>>So I don't think we get trouble here.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Daniel
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>    
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>  
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message