I agree... hey im flexible. I have had to adopt other standards when our
company contracts out to someone. its all a moot point to me. Never thought
I would start a wild debate... uhmm well maybe I did. :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cedric Beust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Simple mild-technical question.
> > From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Al Fogleson
>
> > We have a naming convention for all our classes. (Be they EJB or not)
> > basically it is a 3 letter company code,
> > the if it is an entity bean there is a capital E if a Stateful session a
> > capital S and stateless gets a small S.
>
> I guess the standard Hungarian Notation arguments are going to show up
here
> sooner or later, so here is a quick summary of the thread to come :-)
>
> Pro: this kind of notation it makes it easy to know right away what a bean
is,
> based on its name
>
> Con: what if you suddenly decide to change a SLSB to a SFSB? You end up
doing
> search/replace all across your code.
>
> Pro: well, that's exactly the point. Such a radical design change must be
> accompanied by a thorough reexamination of your code, and who can be
better
> than ejbc at pointing out all the occurrences of your bean?
>
> End of debate. Next topic :-)
>
> --
> Cedric
> http://beust.com/cedric
>
>
===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the
body
> of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
