Most coding only uses the simple name, not the fully qualified one, and Configuration does occur in other projects [1].
The original poster referred to the package, where Configuration is the only non-exception class that does not have "Module" in the name [2]. Stephen [1] https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-configuration/apidocs/org/apache/commons/configuration2/Configuration.html [2] http://download.java.net/java/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/module/package-summary.html On 26 September 2016 at 10:25, Neil Bartlett <njbartl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Module is already in the name: “java.lang.module.Configuration”. Wouldn’t > “java.lang.module.ModuleConfiguration” look really odd? > > Neil > >> On 21 Sep 2016, at 16:18, 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. >> Stephen >> >> 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 >
