Re: [Subclipse-users] Major refactoring - issues?

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 19:55 -0500, Scott Palmer wrote:
> I disagree, the default package can never have a name and it
> therefore makes no sense to "rename" it.

Sigh. I have a project with all its sources in a default package. I want
to put all those sources into a named package. Make sense so far?

OK, now just using Eclipse to do this is no problem at all - just make a
new package with the desired name and cut/paste or move the sources from
the default package into the new named package.

But: That doesn't work if you want the changes to be tracked by
Subversion. Intuitive though it is, it is less intuitive than simply
renaming the package - the way you can with practically every other
object in Eclipse!

> Moving classes to a new package can still be done intuitively.

Yes it can - but NOT if you are using Subversion to do your version
control. Then you have to interpose a special step, before you move any
files, where you make sure the new package is under version control. If
you forget this step, you just screwed your versioning. And I would
argue that a simple rename facility would make a lot more sense even to
those not using Subversion.

It works like a champ for named packages; it seems a bit
overly-principled to not do it for the default package.

This may just be a religious argument. I know full well what the default
package is or is not, and I don't think it breaks anything to consider
the default package (at least within Eclipse) as a package with a null
name that can be changed to something else if desired.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (w/h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/                  +61-428-957160 (mob)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subclipse.tigris.org