Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 6219 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2005 07:51:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Apr 2005 07:51:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 5737 invoked by uid 500); 15 Apr 2005 07:51:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 5708 invoked by uid 500); 15 Apr 2005 07:51:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "OJB Developers List" Reply-To: "OJB Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ojb-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 5688 invoked by uid 99); 15 Apr 2005 07:51:17 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from manta.curalia.se (HELO manta.curalia.se) (213.115.149.212) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:51:16 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [80.64.176.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by manta.curalia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441A6ABC031 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:51:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <425F7299.90303@apache.org> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:51:53 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_Kal=E9n?= Organization: ASF User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OJB Developers List Subject: Re: [rfc] Do we need a naming standard ? References: <316E5B943771D311BAC500805FD7A0780260B907@MAIL.osn.state.oh.us> <81c9245ec2dc3202ae7477aa1c04fb53@apache.org> <224f323405041405435c4546a4@mail.gmail.com> <425E66FE.8020900@apache.org> <425EB93D.70600@gmx.ch> In-Reply-To: <425EB93D.70600@gmx.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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