El vie, 10-02-2006 a las 14:14 +0000, Ross Gardler escribió: > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > El vie, 10-02-2006 a las 13:04 +0000, Ross Gardler escribió: > > > >>Plugins are called something like: > >> > >>org.foodomain.forrest.plugin.bar > >> > >>i.e. "plugin" is singular > >> > >>But we have two themes which: > >> > >>org.apache.forrest.theme.Coat > >> > >>and > >> > >>org.apache.forrest.themes.core > >> > >>i.e. "theme" and "themes" is used > >> > >>I propose that we normalise on the existing naming convention used in > >>plugins, i.e. we use "theme" (singular) > >> > > > > > > -1 for theme. > > > > +1 for normalise. > > > > Since core is providing not only *one* theme (singular) but at least 3 > > (coat, pelt, common) it makes more sense to call theme packages > > "org.apache.forrest.themes.x". > > That is true for themes.core, but (probably) not true for third party > themes, which will be singular, and hopefully more common.
Hmm, the idea is (or was original) that you can provide a themes package for e.g. css-zengarden and there you would have a collection of themes within. ...but I see your point and have to think about a wee bit more. > More importantly, the plural is different to the plugin convention, > which serves to confuse. It is this confusion I am trying to avoid. > > >>---- > >> > >>On a related issue. We have no consistency in the naming of plugins. > >> > >>I have tried to follow the Java convention of lower case for the > >>"package" names and Camel case for the plugin name: > >> > >>i.e. org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.FooBar > >> > >>I propose that new releases of plugins should all conform to the camel > >>case usage. We'll keep the current naming for already released plugins. > > > > > > hmm, I find it harder to use the Uppercase variant on linux and since > > java packages do not use uppercase in package names (e.g. package > > org.apache.lenya.transaction;). > > > > See above, I see plugins more as a packages and I am not very happy with > > naming them org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.FooBar because for me that > > is a package and not a Class. > > Yeah, I see your point, I interpret it the other way around A package > name relates to a bunch of related classes, a class is not necessarily a > single class (inner classes). > > So a package name is org.apache.forrest.plugins.input and a class name > is ProjectInfo (for example). > > However, your argument has just as much merit. In this case I don't > really care which way we go, as long as we are consistent. So we need at > least one more person to express a preference and I'll be happy to go > with whatever it is. same here. salu2 -- Thorsten Scherler COO Spain Wyona Inc. - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
