James Grahn wrote: > Oh, what, you expect me to be helpful? ;-) > > I agree that code names are... at least on par with acronyms in many > cases, because acronyms rapidly converge to nonsense too (inserting > words to make the acronym distinct, alphabet soup, &c). But cramming > half a dozen code names into a single project seems a bit extreme.
Yes. It's a pretty big turn-off, especially since all terms are from different languages/cultures. Even when the name is an actual word, "mercury" is almost guaranteed to be mistaken as the element, not the messenger. > It may be boring, but personally I'd prefer descriptive package & jar > names to code names. boring is good. > So: > Outrigger -> services.space > Mahalo -> services.transaction > Reggie -> services.lookup or services.registrar > and so on (with similar changes to jar names). yes please! > That said, package changes may break a terrific amount of code, so it > would be best to make a change like that with some other major change > (like the change from jini to apache.river). yes. Dennis has already done that, now all that's needed is a working committer model..if only because the one in place obviously doesn't work. -h
