Thomas Dudziak wrote:
* Interfaces for extension points have plain names, e.g. QueryFactory,
PersistenceBroker etc.
+1
* The class names of Implementations of such interfaces end in "Impl".
+0
I don't think this is needed in general, but OJB has a history with this
naming and I agree with Armin's point of "InterfaceNameAImpl" and
"InterfaceNameBImpl" beeing easy to group together.
* Abstract base classes of such implementations have their name ending
in "AbstractImpl"
+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".
+0
Don't have a strong opinion about this one.
* 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.
-0
I don't think QueryFactory is too "evil", but I have not extensively
followed the 1.1 IoC refactoring so I am not voting against this.
* Abbreviations where the unabbreviated name is used in OJB, are
replaced with the unabbreviated name. E.g. PersistenceConfigurationKey
instead of PCKey.
-1
The old "PBKey" is a well-known entity in the "PB-API world context",
I do not see any problems with having some abbreviated class names.
I also don't see a problem with having "PersistenceConfiguration"
and "PCKey" co-existing.
Thanks for summing up the vote, Tom!
Regards,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
