[dsdp-tm-dev] RE: RSE Refactorings

[David McKnight <dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally, I'd wnat to get rid of them
since it hinders our ability to identify classes slightly because you're
always looking at RSE*.

____________________________________
David McKnight    
Phone:   905-413-3902 , T/L:  969-3902
Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
Mail:       D1/140/8200/TOR
____________________________________

"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

11/08/2006 04:24 PM

To	Kushal Munir/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc	David McKnight/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "David Dykstal" <david_dykstal@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Target Management developer discussions" <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>