Thorsten Scherler wrote: > Ferdinand Soethe escribi??: > > David Crossley wrote: > > > Singular for a "plugin" package ... > > > > +1 > > > > > org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.fooBar > > > org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.xhtml > > > > > Plural for a "themes" package ... > > > > +1 > > > > simply because the have the capability to contain more than one > > > > > org.apache.forrest.themes.core > > > org.apache.forrest.themes.backyardGarden > > > > Much in favor or camel case because it is so much better to > > understand once we get into more complex names. > > > > Perhaps each of us can donate some upper case keys to Thorsten to help > > with the transition :-) > > jeje > > no, let me explain why from java logic > org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.PhotoGallery > would mean there is a class e.g. named PhotoGallery.java in the > following *path* > org/apache/forrest/plugin/input/PhotoGallery.java > > What we are doing (given Ross explanation) > > Ross Gardler escribi??: > > 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). > > right now is not conform to the java spec. > > If we would adopt the dir structure I still argue that the > package should be called org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.photoGallery > since it is more then just a "bunch of related classes". It is a package > of classes. ;-) > > With camel case we would (logically) prevent that plugins could provide > components. > org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.photoGallery.transformation.PhotoGallery > would be in a dir called: > org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.PhotoGallery/
The plugin name is not Java related. Any java starts at src/java directory. So IMO we can use our own convention for the plugin names. -David
