Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] RE: RSE Refactorings
In many cases I find the RSE prefix redundant. There are probably places where it would be nice, particularly if it would result in confusion between a type in RSE and a similar type in the Eclipse base. So, rather than rule it out entirely, I would address this on a case by case basis, with a preference toward leaving it out if it looks like it can be dispensed with. 
---------------------------
Dave Dykstal
dykstal@xxxxxxx


On Aug 11, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Oberhuber, Martin wrote:



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








_______________________________________________
dsdp-tm-dev mailing list
dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-tm-dev

Back to the top