db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Kalén <mka...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ?
Date Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:17:26 GMT
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> What I would like to know is what you think about establishing a basic
> naming standard for OJB.

+1

> One example of such a naming scheme would be:
> 
> * interfaces start with I (e.g. IQueryFactory), implementation bases
> are suffixed with ImplBase, (QueryFactoryImplBase) and default impls
> with DefaultImpl (QueryFactoryDefaultImpl)

IMO we don't need anything else than plain Java interface markers.

Any decent IDE makes it obvious if an entity is an interface,
an abstract class or a concrete class.

"IQueryFactory" looks like a Microsoft COM-interface and not Java.

I think such an interface can be named just "QueryFactory".

> * abbreviations should be used consistently or avoided, e.g. PB should
> be replaced by PersistenceBroker

Agreed.

> * factory classes should be suffixed with Factory, if interface-based
> then the interface otherwise the class

Agreed.

> One reason that I see why we should discuss this now and not later, is
> that we havn't released an initial version of OJB 1.1 yet, so there is
> no hard requirement of interface stability. I realize that we should
> strive for backward compatibility with 1.0 but OJB 1.1 already
> requires some code changes for users, and a clearer naming scheme
> would be to the benefit of the users too.

Personally I think the current CVS HEAD should be released as OJB 2.0
instead of 1.1, there is just too much refactoring to pretend it is even
close to eg 1.0.3...

Increasing x in the x.y.z version numbering scheme makes it obvious
that this is OJB NG (Next Generation). ;-)

Cheers,
  Martin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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