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 Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:51:53 GMT
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. :-)

Just as long as we decide which one to use in the naming standard.

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