Peter Donald wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:35, Paul Hammant wrote:
>
>>Huw, Peter, Folks,
>>
>>I have to say I dislike the MBean suffix for JMX enabled beans. In fact
>>it is my principle objection to JMX (yes I know it is anal).
>
>
> JMX does not require it - its just convention. What do you object to exactly -
> a separate interface or just the suffix. You can quite easily name the
> interface anything you want and phoenix will handle it gracefully.
>
> If it is the interface itselfyou don't like then it would seem I am the only
> one that likes em ;)
;-)
>>Would it be possible to generate them?
>
> yep. I believe many projects do.
Yes, they do, but please don't.
I strongly think that the code should never use a preprocessor, except
when it's part of the language semantics (template-based programming).
It's useless, anal and confusing.
Overall, I usually use very descriptive names for my stuff; it makes
them usually quite long, but I understand them better, ie if I have a
String that holds an URL, I call it something like
userDefinedTargetURLString. The last part is always about the behaviour
of the object.
So MBean for Mbeans is not so bad after all IMHO.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
