db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Armin Waibel <arm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ?
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:41:40 GMT
Hi,

Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> 
> I did not want to advertise the IFoo style, I only gave it as an
> example.

I don't like the IFoo/FooIF too. As suggested in pervious posts the 
"normal" class name without Suffix/Prefix seems to me the simplest 
naming pattern for interfaces.


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.

I think in these specific cases we can allow exceptions and for OJB1.x 
this will happen only once (if any ;-)) after the complete refactoring.


> 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
>

For 1.x I suggest to completely separate the PB-api from the kernel 
(PB-api == PB/PBF). So the PB-api will be an API like ODMG, JDO,... a 
kind of top-level api.
I will post a separate thread with detailed information. After this 
separation static access to PB instances is no longer needed/possible.


> 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.
>

+1 for naming standard
in advance
+1 for using plain class names for interfaces
+1 for FooAbstractImpl, FooDefaultImpl or FooImpl if this is the only 
implementation class shipped with OJB.
+1 for FooFactory for factory classes


> 
>>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.
>

I think we should make a clean sweep for OJB 1.x and rethink/check 
classes and methods, adding new features, move/merge methods and classes 
(package name structure?? useful?), ...
and after all these operations we can make a decision about the release 
version number 1.1, 1.5, 2.0 (maybe we have to name it OJB 5.0, because 
it's sooo outstanding ;-))

regards,
Armin



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

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