On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 11:23 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > "XXXRule --> ActionXXX for all XXX > By using a prefix instead of a suffix, all the Action classes group > nicely together in the javadoc." > > I tend to prefer the type as a suffix,
Ok, we'll see what the general consensus is. I happen to personally like prefixes rather than suffixes, but will go with the majority opinion. > to keep them grouped in the > javadoc I would rather use an "action(s)" subpackage. With or without > 's' is another debate ;) That sounds reasonable. However I do dislike having mutual dependencies between java packages; a DAG (directed acyclic graph) is good for a number of reasons. So if we have an "o.a.c.d.actions" package for the standard actions, then we probably need an "o.a.c.d.factory" package so the ActionFactory class (which now holds the old Digester.addXXXRule factory methods) can be pushed down into it. We would then have dependencies of: o.a.c.d.actions --> o.a.c.d o.a.c.d.factory --> o.a.c.d.actions, o.a.c.d which is acceptable. Thoughts? Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
