WAFFLE 1.4 for Java Non-Standard Package Naming. Must be "com.codeplex.waffle"

Sep 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Hi dblock!

Right now our WAFFLE classes are placed under the "waffle.*" package, which may the convention for .NET applications.

But in Java, your package name should reflect a domain.

Good thing your project is hosted in codeplex. So your WAFFLE classes should be refactored and placed under:

com.codeplex.waffle.*

Please implement this in WAFFLE 1.4! I'd like to help, but your SVN Tree is Read-Only.

Regards,
thenonhacker

 

Coordinator
Sep 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Who says so? What am I going to do when CodePlex goes out of business? :)

On another note, to contribute to Waffle:

  1. File feature requests in the issue tracker. Create discussions when you have a question or if you're unsure that you want something.
  2. Upload SVN patches to source code patches upload. Eventually you get write access and don't need this any more when you do a good job ;)

cheers
dB.

 

 

Sep 23, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Thanks for the info dblock!

Well if I refactor the package names, that is going to be a big patch, because all files will be moved into the

com.dblock.waffle.*

Java package.  :)

Coordinator
Sep 23, 2010 at 7:47 PM

You still didn't say why. Sun invented this idea that package names would follow domain names, and now they are Oracle! I am sure there're people at Oracle going "we should rename com.sun.java to com.oracle.java".

Sep 23, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Here you go:

  • http://www.efsavage.com/blog/posts/java_package_conventions/
  • http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconventions-135099.html

 

I bet Oracle will update the Sun package names. They have already started with the Java Installers.

Coordinator
Sep 23, 2010 at 9:25 PM
This discussion has been copied to a work item. Click here to go to the work item and continue the discussion.
Coordinator
Sep 23, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Those are wonderful reads :) I've created a feature request (you could/should have done that in the first place), so vote for it. If this gets a non-trivial number of votes I'd be happy to oblige. Personally I believe this accomplishes absolutely nothing except some frustration during upgrade time.

Sep 24, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Thanks db! :)