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 Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:28:47 GMT
On 4/15/05, Martin Kalén <mkalen@apache.org> wrote:
> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
> > yes, the m_fields were introduced by me.
> > the company i work for uses this standard and when i first saw it, i
> > found it totally useless. i'm an old smalltalker and was used to access
> > all instVars by getters and setters, so i didn't care about the name of
> > the instVar itself. in java code i found that most instVars were
> > accessed directly, and sometimes even temVars or parameters had the same
> > name as the instVars. so after all the m_ prefix looked quite useful,
> > because it let's me spot the access to instVars quickly.
> You are right, I didn't think about the encapsulation issue.
> However, I think it is more of a Java de-facto standard to name getters
> and setters according to the members name. At least with IntelliJ IDEA
> refactoring tools you can then rename getters/setters and all callers of
> those automagically when you rename a memeber variable (which is not
> possible for "protected String m_foo;" vs "public String getFoo();").
> But I don't have a huge issue with "m_" prefixes for members and will
> happily use whatever the majority decides on. :-)

Well I do, at least with the 'm' because it doesn't mean anything in
Java as opposed to C++ where you'd also have g_ for global variables
(outside of classes). Personally I use a similar naming standard (from
my C++ and C# 'roots') which uses a simple underscore.
In Eclipse, you can specify suffixes (e.g. 'm_' or '_') that Eclipse
automatically recognizes when generating accessors and while


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

View raw message