hi all,
here are the results of the swiss jury. what about naming of instvars, parameters etc. ?
jakob
Thomas Dudziak schrieb:
Following our discussion, I thought it useful to vote about a naming standard and - if successful - apply it prior to releasing the first version of the 1.1 branch.
In the discussion the following scheme has emerged so I hereby propose it:
* Interfaces for extension points have plain names, e.g. QueryFactory, PersistenceBroker etc.
[X] +1 [ ] +/- 0 [ ] -1
* The class names of Implementations of such interfaces end in "Impl".
[X] +1 [ ] +/- 0 [ ] -1
* Abstract base classes of such implementations have their name ending in "AbstractImpl"
[X] +1 [ ] +/- 0 [ ] -1
* If OJB ships with one concrete implementation, and the interface is meant to be an extension point for users for their own implementations (e.g. ProxyFactory), then the implementation class name ends in "DefaultImpl".
[X] +1 [ ] +/- 0 [ ] -1
* Static factory classes will be removed. To my knowledge there are only two such classes in the 1.1 branch: QueryFactory and PersistenceBrokerFactory. The former is not really necessary because the methods only wrap around a constructor class. The latter mainly wraps around methods in the OJB class. The most interesting methods (defaultPersistenceBroker, createPersistenceBroker, etc.) should be moved to the OJB class.
[X] +1 [ ] +/- 0 [ ] -1
* Abbreviations where the unabbreviated name is used in OJB, are replaced with the unabbreviated name. E.g. PersistenceConfigurationKey instead of PCKey.
[X] +1 [ ] +/- 0 [ ] -1
regards, Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
