RE: [wtp-dev] Naming Conventions issue

["Ed Burnette" <Ed.Burnette@xxxxxxx>]

There are pros and cons either way but to me the issue is, is there a good enough reason to deviate from what other projects are doing, especially the Platform? By having all Eclipse projects look pretty much the same it's easier to transfer knowledge from one to another. So I'm in favor of the strict rule that existing projects use. Conventions aren't going to make sense to everybody, which is why it's hard to agree on them, but in this case I can see why one would want to group all the tests together, all the examples together, and so forth.

 

You didn't mention the use of "core" and "ui" in the package names, but again, I would recommend just following what Platform does.

 

---

From: David M Williams
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 5:43 AM

Jim, I thought about sending this note just to you for you insights/purpose in the naming conventions document, but thought I'd also post to list
both to see if anyone else had opinions, and also so everyone could profit from your answer.

In the Eclipse naming conventions guidelines, http://dev.eclipse.org/naming.html, it says some reserved qualifiers should come (very) early in the name.

The following package name segments are reserved:
internal - indicates an internal implementation package that contains no API
tests - indicates a non-API package that contains only test suites
examples - indicates a non-API package that contains only examples
These name are used as qualifiers and appear between the subproject and component name:
org.eclipse.<subproject>.internal.<component>[.*] - internal package
org.eclipse.<subproject>.tests.<component>[.*] - tests
org.eclipse.<subproject>.examples.<component>[.*] - examples