Hi Ramesh, naming is incredibly important in my opinion and I am always thankful for any kind of feedback on that.
I had the same thoughts when creating the API and Provider classes. My thought there was to have the edm provider beans without EDM prefix and the EDM API with the prefix. I did not see that data beans at that time so there is a Property in the edm provider and a property in the data package. My first thought would be to prefix all Provider classes with "Prov" or something like that but I did not have the time for that. If you have any other naming ideas please let me know. Best Regards, Christian -----Original Message----- From: Ramesh Reddy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Donnerstag, 16. April 2015 21:55 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Renaming classes in "org.apache.olingo.commons.api.edm.provider" scratch that, I see some other classes with Edm prefix already. Surely as you can see even after looking at the code for sometime I still get confused with similarly named classes. Renaming them to correctly represent their function is really going help understand for service developers IMO. I understand they are in different packages, but does not do whole lot of good. I am still learning -:) Ramesh.. ----- Original Message ----- > Hi, > > Since we are refactoring lot of common-api, common-core code, is it possible > to rename classes in "org.apache.olingo.commons.api.edm.provider" package in > the common-api module to prefix something like "Edm", so they are EdmAction, > EdmActionImport etc? I always get confused which classes to select when some > of the classes with same name show up from > "org.apache.olingo.commons.api.data" package. By adding this prefix, it > would be much more clear IMO. > > what do you guys think? > > Ramesh.. > http://teiid.org > >
