forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gav...." <brightoncomput...@brightontown.com.au>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin and themes naming convention
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:14:11 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thorsten Scherler" <thorsten.scherler@wyona.com>
To: <dev@forrest.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin and themes naming convention


| El vie, 10-02-2006 a las 14:14 +0000, Ross Gardler escribió:
| > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
| > > El vie, 10-02-2006 a las 13:04 +0000, Ross Gardler escribió:
| > >
| > >>Plugins are called something like:
| > >>
| > >>org.foodomain.forrest.plugin.bar
| > >>
| > >>i.e. "plugin" is singular
| > >>
| > >>But we have two themes which:
| > >>
| > >>org.apache.forrest.theme.Coat
| > >>
| > >>and
| > >>
| > >>org.apache.forrest.themes.core
| > >>
| > >>i.e. "theme" and "themes" is used
| > >>
| > >>I propose that we normalise on the existing naming convention used in
| > >>plugins, i.e. we use "theme" (singular)
| > >>
| > >
| > >
| > > -1 for theme.
| > >
| > > +1 for normalise.
| > >
| > > Since core is providing not only *one* theme (singular) but at least 3
| > > (coat, pelt, common) it makes more sense to call theme packages
| > > "org.apache.forrest.themes.x".
| >
| > That is true for themes.core, but (probably) not true for third party
| > themes, which will be singular, and hopefully more common.
|
| Hmm, the idea is (or was original) that you can provide a themes package
| for e.g. css-zengarden and there you would have a collection of themes
| within.
|
| ...but I see your point and have to think about a wee bit more.
|
|
| > More importantly, the plural is different to the plugin convention,
| > which serves to confuse. It is this confusion I am trying to avoid.

The singular .theme.x makes more sense to me. The majority would
be a singular theme. Matching the singular .plugin. is a bonus.

| >
| > >>----
| > >>
| > >>On a related issue. We have no consistency in the naming of plugins.
| > >>
| > >>I have tried to follow the Java convention of lower case for the
| > >>"package" names and Camel case for the plugin name:
| > >>
| > >>i.e. org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.FooBar
| > >>
| > >>I propose that new releases of plugins should all conform to the camel
| > >>case usage. We'll keep the current naming for already released 
plugins.
| > >
| > >
| > > hmm, I find it harder to use the Uppercase variant on linux and since
| > > java packages do not use uppercase in package names (e.g. package
| > > org.apache.lenya.transaction;).
| > >
| > > See above, I see plugins more as a packages and I am not very happy 
with
| > > naming them org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.FooBar because for me that
| > > is a package and not a Class.
| >
| > Yeah, I see your point, I interpret it the other way around A package
| > name relates to a bunch of related classes, a class is not necessarily a
| > single class (inner classes).
| >
| > So a package name is org.apache.forrest.plugins.input and a class name
| > is ProjectInfo (for example).
| >
| > However, your argument has just as much merit. In this case I don't
| > really care which way we go, as long as we are consistent. So we need at
| > least one more person to express a preference and I'll be happy to go
| > with whatever it is.
|
| same here.

I prefer all lower case to match the rest of the reference. Either all lower
or all CamelCase, it.Looks.messy.mixing.TheTwo.

Both my reasonings above are purely cosmetic constistency.

My 2 cents :)

Gav...

|
| salu2
| -- 
| Thorsten Scherler
| COO Spain
| Wyona Inc.  -  Open Source Content Management  -  Apache Lenya
| http://www.wyona.com                   http://lenya.apache.org
| thorsten.scherler@wyona.com                thorsten@apache.org
|
|
|
|
| -- 
| No virus found in this incoming message.
| Checked by AVG Free Edition.
| Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 9/02/2006
|
| 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 9/02/2006



Mime
View raw message