One other option is to prefix with "Internal" or something similar instead of the XT so it's clear it is our intermediate representation.
-Tim On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:29 PM Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <jcama...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for starting this discussion, Ashvin! > > I think the proposal makes sense. Otherwise, we may find ourselves needing > to explicitly reference the classes using the namespace too often for > common names across table formats. > > -Jesús > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:09 PM Ashvin A <ash...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > > I wanted to discuss our class naming conventions, particularly concerning > > the use of prefixes. As we approach our first release, it's crucial to > > finalize a convention that enhances code readability without compromising > > on best practices. > > > > Classes such as DataFile and Schema often exist in all open table > formats. > > Using the same name in XTable can lead to confusion. A short prefix like > > 'XT' could distinguish these effectively. However, I am aware that some > > consider prefixing an anti-pattern and may have reservations about this > > approach. [1][2] > > > > For context, since XTable was previously OneTable, it has left many > classes > > prefixed with 'One'. While we could continue this tradition, we could > adopt > > a hybrid approach. For classes where ambiguity is high, we would adopt > the > > 'XT' prefix. In other cases, we would opt for non-prefixed names, > > maintaining simplicity and clarity. > > > > I believe this strategy offers a balanced solution, but your input is > > invaluable. Please share your thoughts and suggestions. > > > > Best, > > Ashvin > > > > [1] https://www.yegor256.com/2020/03/03/prefixed-naming.html > > [2] > https://www.nikolaposa.in.rs/blog/2019/01/06/better-naming-convention/ > > >
