On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Daniel Rall wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
...
>>> 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.
>
> I kinda don't see the point, since it's redundant with the package name, but if you (as a consumer) feel it'd be best, we can change it back.
Because Java package names tend to be verbose, it's annoying to have
to fully-qualify package members (e.g.
org.apache.subversion.javahl.Client vs. SVNClient).
In any non-trivial n-tiered application, you usually end up with
multiple "client" classes; this particular name collision comes up
often, so it's best to do what you can to avoid it in the first place
using short prefixes like "SVN".
Received on 2010-01-28 23:48:01 CET