[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[dsdp-tm-dev] RE: RSE Refactorings
|
What do the Dave's think about an "RSE" prefix?
I really appreciate discussing such things as a group
before actually making the changes.
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 10:16 PM
> To: Oberhuber, Martin
> Cc: David McKnight; David Dykstal; Target Management
> developer discussions
> Subject: RE: RSE Refactorings
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I don't think there were any discussions about this, but I
> thought it would
> be better to have a prefix for the base API classes to make
> it easier for
> folks to identify them. Many of our classes in the past have
> had the prefix
> "System" or "ISystem", and infact still do. I thought it
> would be better to
> change to "RSE" as the prefix instead as we refactor the
> classes, but we
> would still be left with inconsistencies unless we went
> through and did
> that for all base API classes (both non-UI and UI).
>
> I don't feel too strongly about this either way, and I'm ok with not
> following this "convention".
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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> Kushal
> Munir/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>
> cc
> 08/11/2006 01:52 David
> McKnight/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
> PM "David Dykstal"
>
>
> <david_dykstal@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Target
> Management developer
> discussions"
>
> <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
