This would only make sense if it was likely to have to deal with two
Configuration classes in the same source file. How likely is that? OTOH,
short names make code easier to read.
Just my 2c.
On Sep 21, 2016 8:19 AM, "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote:
> I had the same thought while watching the slides. Configuration is
> certainly a class name that exists other places, and would benefit
> from being ModuleConfiguration. Layer is less common, so not worried
> so much. Exceptions with "Module" in the name like
> ModuleNotFoundException would also be clearer.
> On 21 September 2016 at 03:36, Kasper Nielsen <kaspe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I was wondering if there are any reasons for why these 3 classes in
> > java.lang.Module
> > Configuration
> > FindException
> > ResolutionException
> > Does not include the name Module?
> > I especially am not to fond of the very generic Configuration name in my
> > source code would much prefer something like ModuleConfiguration.
> > Best
> > Kasper