Home » Eclipse Projects » DTP » Package/plug-in naming and CVS organization suggestion
| Package/plug-in naming and CVS organization suggestion [message #212] |
Fri, 29 April 2005 14:58  |
 Ed Burnette
Messages: 279
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I'd like to suggest that the Data Tools project follow the example of
several other top level projects such as the Eclipse project, Tools, and
Technology in its package naming and CVS organization, as opposed to,
say, the Web Tools project. In particular:
- Don't have 'dtp' or 'data' in the package and plug-in names. It
makes them longer, cryptic (especially with acronyms like dtp) and makes
it harder when moving things between top level projects (for example
moving something from incubation in Technology). I think you'll find it
will work out better to just use the sub-project names and make sure
they're unique.
- Keep the CVS repository flat. WTP's component and category
organization has a few advantages but the big problem with it is it's
nigh impossible to find anything. The extra directories make it harder
to move things around too. So I'm suggesting you keep it simple: one
repository for Data Tools, with each plug-in and feature being a module
at the same level there. Use the "-feature" suffix convention for
features. If you have to have subdirectories, try to just have one
level. Your contributors will appreciate it.
- This one is more opinion, but in general, avoid acronyms,
especially short acronyms that include letters for 'platform' or
'framework' or 'project' or 'eclipse' or 'tools' or 'toolkit' or
'development'. It worked ok when there was only JDT and a few others,
but now it's just getting unworkable.
|
|
|
| Re: Package/plug-in naming and CVS organization suggestion [message #221 is a reply to message #212] |
Sat, 30 April 2005 02:23  |
Eclipse Webmaster
Messages: 607343
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Ed Burnette wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that the Data Tools project follow the example of
> several other top level projects such as the Eclipse project, Tools, and
> Technology in its package naming and CVS organization, as opposed to,
> say, the Web Tools project. In particular:
I agree with this.
> - Keep the CVS repository flat. WTP's component and category
> organization has a few advantages but the big problem with it is it's
> nigh impossible to find anything. The extra directories make it harder
> to move things around too. So I'm suggesting you keep it simple: one
> repository for Data Tools, with each plug-in and feature being a module
> at the same level there. Use the "-feature" suffix convention for
> features. If you have to have subdirectories, try to just have one
> level. Your contributors will appreciate it.
I agree with this also. I think I'll start "encouraging" new top-level
projects to be a bit more consistent with the Eclipse, Tools and
Technology projects in their CVS structure and naming conventions.
Thanks for pointing this out, Ed. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest
for the trees.
D.
|
|
| | |
| Re: Package/plug-in naming and CVS organization suggestion [message #308 is a reply to message #229] |
Wed, 11 May 2005 04:10 |
David Williams
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:23:24 -0400, Scott W. Ambler <eclipse@ambysoft.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, is there an existing naming
> convention/organization set of guidelines in place? If not, the
> easiest way to go about this might be to do a simple write up.
>
> - Scott
>
>
FWIW, There is a naming conventions document, see
http://dev.eclipse.org/naming.html
but I see now it doesn't really cover CVS structure per se.
Interesting discussion though, we organized WTP the
way we did with the "best advice available" at the time,
it being advocated "as the new and improved way of doing things"
(I'm paraphrasing, can't find in my mail logs :)
with many commenting the completely flat structure
of some projects was confusing. ... guess its a
question of balance (and exact "use cases").
|
|
|
| Re: Package/plug-in naming and CVS organization suggestion [message #564944 is a reply to message #212] |
Sat, 30 April 2005 02:23 |
Eclipse Webmaster
Messages: 607343
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Ed Burnette wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that the Data Tools project follow the example of
> several other top level projects such as the Eclipse project, Tools, and
> Technology in its package naming and CVS organization, as opposed to,
> say, the Web Tools project. In particular:
I agree with this.
> - Keep the CVS repository flat. WTP's component and category
> organization has a few advantages but the big problem with it is it's
> nigh impossible to find anything. The extra directories make it harder
> to move things around too. So I'm suggesting you keep it simple: one
> repository for Data Tools, with each plug-in and feature being a module
> at the same level there. Use the "-feature" suffix convention for
> features. If you have to have subdirectories, try to just have one
> level. Your contributors will appreciate it.
I agree with this also. I think I'll start "encouraging" new top-level
projects to be a bit more consistent with the Eclipse, Tools and
Technology projects in their CVS structure and naming conventions.
Thanks for pointing this out, Ed. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest
for the trees.
D.
|
|
| | |
| Re: Package/plug-in naming and CVS organization suggestion [message #565202 is a reply to message #229] |
Wed, 11 May 2005 04:10 |
David Williams
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:23:24 -0400, Scott W. Ambler <eclipse@ambysoft.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, is there an existing naming
> convention/organization set of guidelines in place? If not, the
> easiest way to go about this might be to do a simple write up.
>
> - Scott
>
>
FWIW, There is a naming conventions document, see
http://dev.eclipse.org/naming.html
but I see now it doesn't really cover CVS structure per se.
Interesting discussion though, we organized WTP the
way we did with the "best advice available" at the time,
it being advocated "as the new and improved way of doing things"
(I'm paraphrasing, can't find in my mail logs :)
with many commenting the completely flat structure
of some projects was confusing. ... guess its a
question of balance (and exact "use cases").
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 19 21:08:30 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03377 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
