Hi, I also agree with the suggestion for adding a prefix to the classes in the package: org.apache.olingo.commons.api.edm.provider But I’am not sure about the “Csdl”. However I currently do not have a better proposal. Perhaps somebody has a better name.
Another naming issue I see is the prefix “OData" of the classes within the “org.apache.olingo.commons.api.domain” package. For me it seems that the prefix should be something like “Client” because the classes are mainly (only) used in the context of the ODataClient. Some opinions/suggestions about these points? A result of the renaming could than look like: org.apache.olingo.commons.api.data No changes; still: * (Property) org.apache.olingo.commons.api.domain [OData*] -> Client* (ClientProperty) org.apache.olingo.commons.api.edm No changes; still: Edm* (EdmProperty) org.apache.olingo.commons.api.edm.provider [*] -> Csdl* (CsdlProperty) Best regards, Michael > On 27 Apr 2015, at 08:20, Bolz, Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for feedback, I will take a look into your suggestion below and give > feedback. > If all look good I would do the merge with the master branch today/tomorrow. > > Best regards, > Michael > >> On 24 Apr 2015, at 15:06, Ramesh Reddy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> looking good so far. How about this suggestion from before, Christian also >> seemed to agree with it >> >> org.apache.ol in go.commons.api.edm.provider ==> objects created dur in g >> CSDL document pars in g. "Edm" would have been right prefix for this, s in >> ce can not be used how about "Csdl"? They represent objects from this >> document. >> >> After this I will take another look at them, give you feedback. >> >> Ramesh.. >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
