El sáb, 11-02-2006 a las 13:46 +1100, David Crossley escribió: > 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.
Well, IMO yes, or better it should be. > Any java starts > at src/java directory. No, not necessary. I agree for the src but not for classes. See e.g. eclipse plugins. I think Ross thought about them when he brought the plugins concept to forrest. > So IMO we can use our own > convention for the plugin names. > Yeah, we can, but IMO it would be more logic to use standard naming and not reinvent the naming wheel. That makes it easier for devs to adapt the concept. > -David -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
