db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "shahbaz chaudhary" <c_shah...@hotmail.com>
Subject code organization
Date Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:25:49 GMT
<html><div style='background-color:'><P>I'm curious to hear some thoughts
on code organization from the experts here.&nbsp; While looking at the code, the following
issues seemd interesting:</P>
<P>1. Some of the terms used are not immediately obvious (perhaps just to me?):<BR>DRDA
(network code?), IAPI (interface api?), (vtit...?), noputresultset (NoPut ?)</P>
<P>2. Is it necessary to keep implementation and interfaces in completely seperate&nbsp;packages
(impl | iapi)...since implementation packages contain abstract classes?&nbsp; What about
simply refactoring interface files and adding an 'I' in front to distinguish...many implementation
classes already have *Impl* in their name.&nbsp; Basically this will reduce the number
of directories and packages one has to traverse to find the right set of code files.</P>
<P>3. If I remember correctly, org.apache.derby.*.sql package has around 500 files,
...sql.execute has about 150 files.&nbsp; Could this be broken out more?&nbsp; For
example, couldn't the various CursorResultSet derivitives have their own package...so even
a quick look at just packages gives an overview of the architecture?</P>
<P>4. Combining 2 and 3 will likely make it easier to follow the grammar file.</P>
<P>As I mentioned earlier, these were some of my impressions from having just started
looking at the code.&nbsp; I realize that refactoring the code won't make any functional
improvements but it will be beneficial from a usability perspective...since large number of
'users' of this code will actually be developers looking to get familiar with the code and
<P>btw: Dibyendu et al's documentation looks great.&nbsp; I can't wait to see such
papers regarding higher level functionality!</P></div></html>

View raw message