Paul Fullbright wrote:
Questions:
Why is it that you prefer Id->IdMapping, but think that Entity is
fine by itself?
Id isn't as evil as some of the names, but its behavior is much
like a Mapping - my opinion isn't so strong there.
Why use
-TypeMapping for implementations of that interface but not
-AttributeMapping for implementations of that one?
Hmmm - I guess I don't like the verbosity of -AttributeMapping.
But EmbeddableMapping and NullMapping sound misleading: It's not and
"embeddable" mapping, it's a mapping of an "embeddable" type; and Null
Mapping could apply to either an attribute or a type....
I think
consistency is key. My suggestion: use the annotation name
unless we're talking about an interface that doesn't strictly have an
annotation. (Id, Basic, ColumnAttributeMapping)
It's always difficult to invoke "consistency" as a rationale,
because what you're being consistent with is arbitrary. I could
likewise plead that class names should be nouns, for "consistency's"
sake. Most of these objects look, act, and smell like Mappings (i.e.
they associate an attribute with a database field etc.), so I think
they should be called Mappings.
Comments:
It's not so much that "Persistent" modifies "AttributeMapping".
Rather, "PersistentAttribute" modifies "Mapping". (This object maps a
persistent attribute.) But I agree that AttributeMapping encapsulates
the same understanding.
As far as
interface names and EMF, I'm planning to provide a second
layer of interfaces on top of a group of EMF interfaces simply so I can
hide all the crap that EMF generates from outside the plugin. I want
users to access the interfaces, but I don't want them to create
instances or modify them, which EMF exposes.
What should the naming convention be as an alternative to:
FooImpl->Foo->IFoo?
The I naming convention, while perhaps discarded by many plugins, is
pretty rigorously followed by both the platform and jdt, both of which
we are working closely with. Just sayin'.
Ouch. Discard EMF? ... When were you planning on coding these
public-public interfaces and burdening us with yet another layer of protocols to keep in synch? :-)
Brian
|
