[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[dsdp-tm-dev] RE: RSE Refactorings
|
Hi Kushal,
was it somewhere discussed / agreed / specified that
we'd want an RSE* prefix? Did I miss any discussion
or meeting?
I'm not very fond of the RSE* prefix, to me this
feels like antique, since Java provides package
names in order to distinguish between different
things with the same name.
But I'll happily accept it if you have good arguments...
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kushal Munir [mailto:kmunir@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:40 PM
> To: Oberhuber, Martin
> Cc: David McKnight; David Dykstal; Target Management
> developer discussions
> Subject: Re: RSE Refactorings
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I agree with #1, #4 and #5. It looks like #2 and #3 are being
> discussed
> right now. One suggestion I have is that we prefix our interfaces and
> classes with "RSE", e.g. IRSESubSystemConfiguration,
> RSESubSystemFactory,
> etc. to be consistent with the other new names such as IRSESystemType.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kushal Munir
> Websphere Development Studio Client for iSeries
> IBM Toronto Lab, 8200 Warden Ave., Markham, ON
> Phone: (905) 413-3118 Tie-Line: 969-3118
> Email: kmunir@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
> "Oberhuber,
>
> Martin"
>
> <Martin.Oberhuber
> To
> @windriver.com> "David Dykstal"
>
>
> <david_dykstal@xxxxxxxxxx>, David
> 08/11/2006 09:47
> McKnight/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> AM
> cc
> Kushal
> Munir/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
> "Target Management
> developer
> discussions"
>
>
> <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject
> RSE Refactorings
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Dave's,
>
> I would like to perform the following refactorings:
>
> 1. Rename Extension Point
> "subsystemconfiguration" --> "subSystemConfigurations"
> Rationale: Be more in-line with Platform names
>
> 2. Rename Extension Point Elements of "subSystemConfigurations"
> <configuration
> "class" --> "factoryClass" (required)
> "systemClass" --> "connectorService" (optional)
> />
> Rationale: unify naming, and allow for further extension
> with e.g. serviceClass attribute or "class" attribute
> for an actual ISubSystemConfiguration.
>
> 3. Rename Classes and Interfaces
> *SubSystemConfiguration* --> *SubSystemFactory*
> Rationale: the SubSystemFactory is essentially a factory,
> since its main task is to create ISubSystem objects. Also,
> current RSE Documentation refers to "factories" in an
> endless number of places.
>
> 4. Move extension point documentation from plugin.xml
> into the *.exsd schema
>
> 5. Replace text matches in comments
> ISystem --> IConnectorService
>
>
> We can think about adding more attributes to the
> "subSystemConfigurations" extension point later,
> allowing for a split between SubSystemFactory and
> SubSystemConfiguration if desired.
>
> This would essentially mean adding a new type
> ISubSystemConfiguration that would refer to
> existing SubSystemFactories, in order to allow
> better re-use of SubSystemFactories for work in
> different configurations (services, connectorservices,
> attributes).
>
> Would you agree with these refactorings?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Martin Oberhuber
> Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
> http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
>
>
>
