I'm -1 on removing the Data endings for POJOs, unless we pick some other naming convention to replace it.
It is very convenient to be able to tell immediately from the name that a class is a persistent object class. It makes the code more readable and maintainable. - Dave On 9/12/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I don't see anything wrong with explicitly naming the pojos that should be processed by the doclet processor. Listing them in a build property is not so bad. So count me as +0 for renaming *Data if it irritates people. My tolerance level for misspelling is pretty low, but having *Data in the class name doesn't bother me. Craig On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Allen Gilliland wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> Craig Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://db.apache.org/jdo
