Thomas Dudziak wrote:
What I would like to know is what you think about establishing a basic
naming standard for OJB.
+1
One example of such a naming scheme would be:
* interfaces start with I (e.g. IQueryFactory), implementation bases
are suffixed with ImplBase, (QueryFactoryImplBase) and default impls
with DefaultImpl (QueryFactoryDefaultImpl)
IMO we don't need anything else than plain Java interface markers.
Any decent IDE makes it obvious if an entity is an interface,
an abstract class or a concrete class.
"IQueryFactory" looks like a Microsoft COM-interface and not Java.
I think such an interface can be named just "QueryFactory".
* abbreviations should be used consistently or avoided, e.g. PB should
be replaced by PersistenceBroker
Agreed.
* factory classes should be suffixed with Factory, if interface-based
then the interface otherwise the class
Agreed.
One reason that I see why we should discuss this now and not later, is
that we havn't released an initial version of OJB 1.1 yet, so there is
no hard requirement of interface stability. I realize that we should
strive for backward compatibility with 1.0 but OJB 1.1 already
requires some code changes for users, and a clearer naming scheme
would be to the benefit of the users too.
Personally I think the current CVS HEAD should be released as OJB 2.0
instead of 1.1, there is just too much refactoring to pretend it is even
close to eg 1.0.3...
Increasing x in the x.y.z version numbering scheme makes it obvious
that this is OJB NG (Next Generation). ;-)
Cheers,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
