[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: JavaHL package name? (was: Discussion: graduating Subversion)

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_finemaltcoding.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:26:47 -0800

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> I think this is the way to go.  I was playing around last night with re-jiggering the java code into the new
>> package(s), and got something reasonable put together.  I'll commit it shortly, and I invite folks to
>> comment / criticize.
>>
>> (I'm especially hoping Mark can take a look, as he probably has more knowledge about Java package
>> organization than I do.  And he's one of the primary consumers.)
>
> It looks good so far, but until all of the existing JavaHL code is
> successfully modified to use the new packages I am still a little
> leary.  I wish I could be more specific, but I recall trying to do
> something in the past from Subclipse where there were certain JavaHL
> objects that could not be created from outside the JavaHL package.

If we had package private classes that you wanted to use externally,
this would be the case.
I recall more that we had C++ classes that weren't exposed directly to
Java that you wanted to use; I think I ended up exposing them via Java
wrappers.

> So
> I am wondering how we will be able to wrapper these.  It could turn
> out to be nothing or maybe we will just have to modify the new Apache
> versions.
>
> Some things I would like to do since we are renaming:
>
> 1) Make all interfaces start with "I". You already did this for
> SVNClientInterface, I'd like to do it for all of them.

Fine, but dump any "Interface" suffix in this case.

> 2) Clean up deprecated methods/classes.  It looks like you are already
> doing this.  I saw a few more (BlameCallback3 springs to mind).

Yay!

> 3) Looks like you renamed SVNClient to Client.  I think I would prefer
> the old name just because it can be a nuisance if someone has another
> class named Client (which seems like a potentially common name).

Ditto, keep the prefix.

> 4) Looks like you plan to dump the Synchronized client.  No real
> comment or objection from me.

Die!

> 5) If we have time, there might be improvements/modifications that can
> be performed on existing classes.  Nothing specific springs to mind at
> the moment.
>
> Adding dlr to the to: list.  He has so much experience in the history
> of these classes it would be good to have his feedback.

I haven't looked at the code and don't expect any time to do so until
late next week at the earliest. Please do keep me in the loop, though.
Received on 2010-01-28 22:02:12 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.