Given the refactoring tools in IDEs today, I'd probably go with keeping the names in synch as opposed to keeping some other form of documentation in synch; since, if the classes are not named then same, then you might have to otherwise document which class calls which stored procedure.
One counter argument might be that "Csm5RRP" doesn't seem like a meaningful name. If it has no meaning in the business domain, then the stored procedure might be considered an implementation detail, better hidden behind a facade. In that case, we might want to give the parser a meaningful name, like QuarterlySalesReport, and let it encapsulate which stored procedure happens to be involved. (Unless of course, the stored procedures were renamed to better describe their function.) -Ted. On Nov 21, 2007 9:35 AM, Zhang, Larry (L.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I knew my question may not be very related to this list, but let me just > ask anyway: > > I have many DB2 stored procedures, for each procedure I correspondingly > have a Java parser to parser the result set. I currently name these > classes the same name as stored procedure. Example, Csm5RRP (this is the > stored procedure name), then my Java class name is Csm5RRPParser.java. > > Then 2 days ago, they have to change the names for all the stored > procedure, to makes things meaningful, I have to rename all my java > classes. -- this is really a pain. > > Do you guys have an argument on this? Is this a good naming practice? If > not, what will be the naming convention in this situation? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
