db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Dudziak <tom...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ?
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:13:14 GMT
On 4/14/05, Clute, Andrew <Andrew.Clute@osn.state.oh.us> wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian McCallister [mailto:brianm@apache.org]
> Sent: Wed 4/13/2005 10:17 PM
> To: OJB Developers List
> Subject: Re: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ?
> 
> >Please do not use the IFoo convention. Please please please don't.
> 
> >-Brian
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why?
> 
> My main complaint with the IFoo convention is that it usually puts spacing in your IDE's
between the interface classes, and the implementation classes, i.e
> 
> IFoo
> ..
> ..
> FooDefaultImpl
> FooSpecialImpl
> 
> Nit picky, I know. However, out of the code that I have seen, I have always prefered
the pattern thay parts of OJB already use:
> 
> Foo (interface)
> FooAbstractImpl
> FooDefaultImpl


I did not want to advertise the IFoo style, I only gave it as an
example. One benefit of this style however is that it leaves names
like QueryFactory open which can be used by the convenience classes
that provide static acces, e.g. QueryFactory and
PersistenceBrokerFactory. For other naming schemes we would have to
think about a naming pattern for them. Though I wouldn't mind if we
get rid of them altogether. If need be, we could put the static access
to the default PB into the OJB class

The main issue that I see is that we need a naming standard in this
area. If there is a consensus about this, then we could vote the
standard to use.

> And to Martin's point, I tend to agree that the scope of changes inside HEAD merits a
'2.0' moniker. That would free up the possibility of introducing releases from the current
1.0.X line that contain more then just bug-fixes, and the release number could more accuretly
reflect that.

I don't know, most of the changes are internal (IoC, most services are
configurable etc.), there are only a few changes that are visible and
relevant for normal usage, most notably probably the introduction of
the OJB class and the PersistenceConfiguration.

Tom

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org


Mime
View raw message