Nope, this guy was from San Diego. He had many other pearls of wisdom. My
favorite was when he designed a system that would dynamically load an EJB
bean implementation at run-time. He wasn't using delegates or proxies or
anything coded, he wanted to use deployment descriptors. That was a fun one
to peer review.
BAL
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED],user@struts.apache.org
Subject: Re: [FRIDAY] package naming nonsense
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:32:29 -0400
By chance, was his name "Adam Hardy"?
;)
"Brian Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
06/17/2005 09:52 AM
Please respond to
"Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org>
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED], user@struts.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: [FRIDAY] package naming nonsense
That's pretty much the reasoning I always got behing. This remings me of a
funny time a consultant suggested removing all the "com." from our
package
names in order to "save 4 bytes" from each class file.
BAL
>From: Hubert Rabago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Struts Users Mailing List <user@struts.apache.org>
>Subject: Re: [FRIDAY] package naming nonsense
>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:09:24 -0500
>
>IIRC, it really was the possibility of mix-ups that was the idea
>behind using TLDs for package names. At least with TLDs, one can
>reasonably assume that the groups sharing the same TLD could work out
>organizing package naming conventions amongst themselves. Without the
>convention, the IT groups of widget.com and widget.org would just have
>to hope that they never have a common customer, or they never work on
>any package with the same name.
>
>The problem about unique names doesn't apply to JAR files because you
>can just rename them.
>
>Let's at least be thankful we don't have to use URIs
>(http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/04/13/namespace-uris.html). :)
>
>Hubert
>
>
>On 6/17/05, Adam Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since it's Friday and I'm just about to start a new project, I thought
> > I'd ask everyone what they think about something that's always bugged
>me.
> >
> > Package names in Java. Why do we all have com.blah.blah or
> > org.apache.stuff.xxx instead of just plain blah.blah.blah and
> > apache.stuff.xxx?
><snip/>
> > And even if there is, why is the mix-up possibility so important when
it
> > comes to package names, when it's not considered when it comes to jar
> > naming conventions. If there ever was a com.apache.struts, what would
> > they call their jar? Would they have to use com_struts-1.2.7.jar
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
