db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jakob Braeuchi <jbraeu...@gmx.ch>
Subject Re: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ?
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:41:01 GMT
hi all,

i'd prefer the Foo/FooImpl naming standard for interfaces.

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.

jakob

Martin Kalén schrieb:
> Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> 
>>> These are nits, and we can obviously work with whatever form is used
>>> (heck we have lots of code of the form m_thingie for instance vars) and
>>> having an expected standard is a Good Thing. I just don't like those
>>> particular idioms.
>>
>>
>> Right you are, these m_someField (and for that matter _someField)
>> could be removed as well. But they are not visible to the user, so we
>> can handle them as we go, so to speak.
> 
> 
> +1 -- let's stop playing C++ with those fields. :-)
> 
>  Martin
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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