sorry, late reply.
actually, this is probably as much a pet peeve as anything, but the
*Data convention is one of the worst offenders in my mind. i guess i
just don't like the idea that a build tool is telling me how is should
name and/or structure my code. that just seems backwards to me.
i would prefer it if xdoclet had a better way of being told what pojos
we wanted to be mapped. for example, it would only map classes that had
a special annotation @persistent-class at the class level comment.
-- Allen
Anil Gangolli wrote:
Agree with most of these, but the "*Data" convention is used by the
build to determine the set of classes over which to run Xdoclet. We'd
need an alternative mechanism. We could name them explicitly, but I
think this convention is useful to easily identify the pojos that have
associated persistence behavior.
--a.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Misspelled ReferrerManager
I agree that we should rename it, but I think it's too late to do this
for 3.0. We've already spent way too much time testing/refining the
release to go in and do a sweeping change that touches lots of classes.
Also, I don't think there is any reason that change can't be made for
the next release. I would actually prefer that we do a single rename
for all of our classes rather than keep picking at them one at a time.
For example I would be a strong supporter of a few other renamings ...
1. Website -> Weblog
2. Remove "Data" from all the pojos.
3. Referer -> Referrer
4. Index -> Search
and probably a few others if I looked harder. so rather than try to
squeeze this in for 3.0, why don't we plan to make it a feature for
3.1 and do a more complete renaming.
-- Allen
Craig L Russell wrote:
I noticed (again with 3.0) that the ReferrerManager interface name is
misspelled. According to my IDE, there are 35 occurrences of this
interface name in the entire source code.
It seems that 3.0 might be the right time to fix this.
If everyone agrees, I can provide a patch. I don't think I should
check it in, because I'm not comfortable enough with making sure that
I didn't cause a regression because of a missed update.
Craig
Craig Russell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://db.apache.org/jdo
