Thorsten Scherler wrote:
El sáb, 11-02-2006 a las 13:46 +1100, David Crossley escribió:
...
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.
I think we are going down a dead end here. Java was only ever mentioned
in this thread with respect to a "convetion" not a technology - it has
nothing to do with Java the programming langauge only the convention of
naming things that are used within Java. The same convetion is used for
naming ResourceBundles in Java, which do not contain Java code, for example.
Lets not get bogged down in a long discussion. Lets just pick a
convention and stick with it. We already did that a good few mails ago.
Any java starts
at src/java directory.
No, not necessary. I agree for the src but not for classes. See e.g.
eclipse plugins.
The eclipse plugins are plugins for Eclipse not plugins for Forrest. It
is a completely different issue. Therefore, I am having difficulty
understanding the next sentence in this paragraph.
I think Ross thought about them when he brought the
plugins concept to forrest.
What do yu mean "thought about" what is there to think about here? Is
this a throw away comment or something with important meaning?
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.
I agree. The problem is that we don't agree on what the naming
convention means because it is not a direct map from Java to Plugins
(althoug I believe if we consider resource bundles the match comes much
closer).
Both Thorsten and I agreed to go with the majority. We have a majority
in this thread. It was outlined by David earlier on. Lets adopt it an
move on.
Ross
