>But I would vote for not creating IPagableEntity. => Do you have an alternative name proposal?
>Also we already has discussion regarding class renaming.... >Are we still planning to do it? >Shall I handle it?* => If you refer to this ones: Users => User Adresses => Address States => State ... et cetera. It is still planned todo. But our code base is not stable enough currently. We have enough instability :) Renaming Entities will affect JPQL, a simple "eclipse refactoring" will not fix this at all. I would rather prefer to fix the Backup Export/Import, then create a "master backup file" that contains a lot of the eventualities and that we can use as reference for testing. After that we can refactor Entities and table names and do test it with our master backup file again. *do I need to take a look at your import/export issue or you going to fix it yourself?* => There are multiple issues here. Some queries don't work anymore because of refactoring with Lazy Loading and there is a general issue with the XML framework. I think I will have a look at this issue by the start of this week. We also still have some open issues for the Admin area like search fields, ordering of tables, creating/improving the CSS file for the layout of the forms and grids. And you are also already looking in howto bring WebSocket's and Atmosphere Framework into our stack. I think that is already a lot of stuff todo. We should complete components before we move on and add new things. Although I think your work regarding WebSockets/Tomcat7 and Atmosphere is really useful as those features will be the next big thing to integrate. What do you think? Sebastian 2012/10/14 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > Also we already has discussion regarding class renaming.... > Are we still planning to do it? > Shall I handle it? > > BTW do I need to take a look at your import/export issue or you going to > fix it yourself? > On Oct 14, 2012 10:05 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree regarding interface and dao. But I would vote for not creating > > IPagableEntity. My idea was to create something like absttact > Identifiable, > > add id field to it and getter and setter. (All our entities has id) > > On Oct 14, 2012 7:14 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I would like to propose the following naming conventions: > >> > >> Interfaces start with an "I" > >> > >> public interface IOmDao { > >> } > >> > >> Implementations like the DaoImpl (Data Access Object Implementation) > >> will be renamed to Dao (without the Impl, there is no need to write > "Impl" > >> if the Dao interface has the "I" in its name). > >> > >> So the UserDaoImpl will be simply: > >> UserDao implements IOmDao > >> > >> And I would like to find a more meaningful name for "OmDao" and > >> "OmEntity".. > >> It might be better to name those interfaces by its usage, cause the name > >> "OpenMeetings" might change and it does not say so much about the usage > of > >> the interface. > >> > >> Maybe something like "IPagingDao" or "IPaginationDao" > >> and the corresponding "OmEntity" to "IPagingEntity". > >> > >> Sebastian > >> > >> -- > >> Sebastian Wagner > >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > >> http://www.webbase-design.de > >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > >> [email protected] > >> > > > -- Sebastian Wagner https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock http://www.webbase-design.de http://www.wagner-sebastian.com [email protected]
