I think you are best off trying to use this convention and if you can
use it from the start well and good. However, as Niklaus Wirth
observed, we end up growing systems rather than designing the
finished product. So most things get refactored. A common case is
where do you put all those little utility routines you get. I decided
to refactor some of this last week, only to find Java's package
mechanism is really brittle. You have to revisit every file's imports
(rather than this being done in a meta place with overall project
information).
So I started out trying to do the perfect package scheme and ended up
with a compromise just to keep things working, although this was not
without pain of classes and methods not found - not at compile time,
but at run time. Ugh!
Ian
On 31/08/2006, at 6:02 AM, bsd5tu1 wrote:
How many out there really adhere to the class naming convention
(example com.mycompany.myproduct.XXX.java) for actual products? Why
or why not?
I've always disliked using packages when possible because to me it
seems Java ties the package with a directory structure too tightly.
Sometimes I like to arrange things in order to just "tidy up"
things but doing so often ends up causing packaging problems.
Just curious,
Thanks in advance.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Java-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/java-dev/email@hidden
