Hi all, Here is a list of potential conflicts: - java.awt.Container - java.awt.Component - java.lang.ref.Reference - java.lang.reflect.Method - java.security.Guard - java.util.logging.Handler
Of those names, only Component is directly derived from the dissertation, but Reference and Method are derived from HTTP and URI standards. Interestingly, java.awt.List conflicts with java.util.List and java.lang.annotation.Annotation with java.text.Annotation, so even Sun isn't immune to these kind of issues. IMHO, we should just try to live with this. It is for example not very likely that someone would want to develop Restlets and AWT code at the same time. Component will rarely be used by developers (abstract class). Maybe Container could be renamed to Engine, that would be consistent with the NRE terminology? But is it even worth it, I'm not sure. Best regards, Jerome Best regards, Jerome > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Chris Grindstaff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : vendredi 17 novembre 2006 15:20 > À : Lars Heuer > Objet : Re: name conflicts > > Friday, November 17, 2006, 7:38:29 AM, you wrote: > > LH> Hi Dave, > > LH> [...] > >>> However, I'm willing to consider renaming if we have name > conflicts with > >>> core JDK classes (ie. in packages java.*). Does it sounds > fair enough? > > >> Yes, but I do understand the problem. > >> Not nice, but a possibility might be to prefix? > >> E.g. Container => RContainer (restlet container) instead > of java.awt.Container. > > LH> Oh, no, please don't. We have namespaces in Java (the > package names), that > LH> should be enough. > > I agree, this is a non-issue. > > Let's not bastardize the good names we have. Especially the ones that > directly map to Roy's dissertation. I think the direct mapping is very > helpful. > > The restlet code is well packaged. > > -Chris > -- > Chris Grindstaff | http://gstaff.org
