[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [wtp-dev] Naming Conventions issue
|
David/Naci/Arthur,
These are good suggestions. I agree we need to loosen up the naming a bit
from what we did in the past.
I'm proposing that the rule used for internal package names should match
org.eclipse.<subproject>[.*].internal[.*]
This is consistent with past practice, and would allow "internal" to
appear in the part of the package name where it makes the most sense.
---jim
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/15/2004 11:47 AM
Please respond to
wtp-dev
To
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Jim des Rivieres/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Subject
Re: [wtp-dev] Naming Conventions issue
Naci/David/Jim,
This topic is very relevant since we are going to do a refresh of our code
soon and we should get the naming right at that time. I'd like Jim to
arbitrate this discussion since WTP should be a good Eclipse citizen.
However, I am planning to immediately check in some data code so we can
make some progress and I will be observing the status quo, which is the
Jim guideline.
Let's target to have a final resolution of this by 10/28.
Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/
Naci Dai <naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/15/2004 07:20 AM
Please respond to
wtp-dev
To
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Jim des Rivieres/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
cc
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject
Re: [wtp-dev] Naming Conventions issue
My 2 cents:
- I would like to identify the subproject and component. This should be
the primary part. It allows us to identify packages with as little
assistance as possible.
org.eclipse.<subproject>.<component>[.*]
- I would like to identify the "api" and "non-api" as the second part. The
naming conventions suggest identifying non-api explicitly with reserved
words like
org.eclipse.<subproject>.<component>.tests[.*] - tests
org.eclipse.<subproject>.<component>.examples[.*] - examples
- Internal non-public packages are best identified in a similar fashion,
but there may be additional keywords that provide applications semantics.
Here David's principle fits; "appear in the plugin/package name in a way
that best identifies what package or plugin it corresponds to".:
org.eclipse.<subproject>.<component>[*].internal[.*] - internal packages
At 12:43 PM 10/15/2004, David M Williams wrote:
Jim, I thought about sending this note just to you for you
insights/purpose in the naming conventions document, but thought I'd also
post to list
both to see if anyone else had opinions, and also so everyone could profit
from your answer.
In the Eclipse naming conventions guidelines,
http://dev.eclipse.org/naming.html, it says some reserved qualifiers
should come (very) early in the name.
The following package name segments are reserved:
internal - indicates an internal implementation package that contains no
API
tests - indicates a non-API package that contains only test suites
examples - indicates a non-API package that contains only examples
These name are used as qualifiers and appear between the subproject and
component name:
org.eclipse.<subproject>.internal.<component>[.*] - internal package
org.eclipse.<subproject>.tests.<component>[.*] - tests
org.eclipse.<subproject>.examples.<component>[.*] - examples
This rules doesn't make sense to me, and am wondering if I just don't
understand it, or if in fact the rule should be changed.
I would think the correct statement of the rule should simply be that the
reserved word
"appear in the plugin/package name in a way that best identifies
what package or plugin it corresponds to".
Examples you list as "incorrect" seem to follow that proposed version
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.core.compiler - Correct usage
org.eclipse.jdt.core.internal.compiler - Incorrect. internal should
immediately follow subproject name.
org.eclipse.core.internal.resources - Correct usage
org.eclipse.internal.core.resources - Incorrect. internal should never
immediately follow org.eclipse.
org.eclipse.core.resources.internal - Incorrect. internal should
immediately follow Eclipse Platform component name.
Here's some WST examples (I don't know if these will be final names, ... I
just quickly came up with these as examples).
Now *to me* the first list makes more sense. Are there others readers that
the second list makes more sense? That is, easier to work with?
Names based on what "goes together" based on function
org.eclipse.wst.data
org.eclipse.wst.data.internal
org.eclipse.wst.data.sql
org.eclipse.wst.data.sql.internal
org.eclipse.wst.data.sql.tests
org.eclipse.wst.data.tests
org.eclipse.wst.editor
org.eclipse.wst.editor.html
org.eclipse.wst.editor.html.internal
org.eclipse.wst.editor.html.tests
org.eclipse.wst.editor.internal
org.eclipse.wst.editor.tests
org.eclipse.wst.editor.xml
org.eclipse.wst.editor.xml.internal
org.eclipse.wst.editor.xml.tests
org.eclipse.wst.server
org.eclipse.wst.server.internal
org.eclipse.wst.server.tests
Names following strict rule:
org.eclipse.wst.data
org.eclipse.wst.data.sql
org.eclipse.wst.editor
org.eclipse.wst.editor.html
org.eclipse.wst.editor.xml
org.eclipse.wst.server
org.eclipse.wst.tests.data
org.eclipse.wst.tests.data.sql
org.eclipse.wst.tests.editor
org.eclipse.wst.tests.editor.html
org.eclipse.wst.tests.editor.xml
org.eclipse.wst.internal.server
org.eclipse.wst.internal.data
org.eclipse.wst.internal.data.sql
org.eclipse.wst.internal.editor
org.eclipse.wst.internal.editor.html
org.eclipse.wst.internal.editor.xml
org.eclipse.wst.internal.server
I'd be the first to admit I may simply be "stuck in my ways" -- that is,
used to seeing it one way -- and don't see the advantages of always having
the name early in the segments,
so thought I'd post here on wtp-dev to see if others have any preferences
or insights into why one scheme might be better than another.
Is there a conceptual or working advantage ... or just an attempt to be
over specific on a rule just for the sake of a consistent unambiguous
rule?
In either case, it might be nice to spell out the reason for the rule in
the naming conventions document.
Thanks all.
Naci Dai,
Managing Director
eteration a.s.
Inonu cad. Sumer sok. Zitas D1-15
Kozyatagi, Istanbul 81090
+90 (532) 573 7783 (cell)
+90 (216) 361 5434 (phone)
+90 (216) 361 2034 (fax)
http://www.eteration.com
mailto:nacidai@xxxxxxx
mailto:naci@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
