db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Dudziak <tom...@gmail.com>
Subject [vote] Naming standard
Date Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:09:44 GMT
Following our discussion, I thought it useful to vote about a naming
standard and - if successful - apply it prior to releasing the first
version of the 1.1 branch.

In the discussion the following scheme has emerged so I hereby propose it:

* Interfaces for extension points have plain names, e.g. QueryFactory,
PersistenceBroker etc.

[ ] +1
[ ] +/- 0
[ ] -1

* The class names of Implementations of such interfaces end in "Impl".

[ ] +1
[ ] +/- 0
[ ] -1

* Abstract base classes of such implementations have their name ending
in "AbstractImpl"

[ ] +1
[ ] +/- 0
[ ] -1

* If OJB ships with one concrete implementation, and the interface is
meant to be an extension point for users for their own implementations
(e.g. ProxyFactory), then the implementation class name ends in
"DefaultImpl".

[ ] +1
[ ] +/- 0
[ ] -1

* Static factory classes will be removed. To my knowledge there are
only two such classes in the 1.1 branch: QueryFactory and
PersistenceBrokerFactory. The former is not really necessary because
the methods only wrap around a constructor class. The latter mainly
wraps around methods in the OJB class. The most interesting methods
(defaultPersistenceBroker, createPersistenceBroker, etc.) should be
moved to the OJB class.

[ ] +1
[ ] +/- 0
[ ] -1

* Abbreviations where the unabbreviated name is used in OJB, are
replaced with the unabbreviated name. E.g. PersistenceConfigurationKey
instead of PCKey.

[ ] +1
[ ] +/- 0
[ ] -1

regards,
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