FAQ
I am feeling like the package for the new naming stuff,
"access.reveng", should either be renamed or moved to some existing
package. Two reasons:

* Classes and interfaces there by themselves do not deal with "reverse
engineering". They are used during reverse engineering by other
classes located elsewhere (and can potentially be used for other
things, e.g. creating an ObjEntity in the Modeler from a DbEntity.

* Don't like using an abbreviation ("reveng"). We've been guilty of
that in the past (ObjEntity), but now trying to stay away from abbrevs.

Not completely sure where it would fit though.
"org.apache.cayenne.map.naming" maybe?

Andrus

Search Discussions

  • Andrey Razumovsky at Dec 20, 2008 at 12:14 pm
    Hi Andrus,

    While I have no objections to this renaming in general, you should know that
    this package was already distributed in M5. So this renaming can cause
    potential compilation problems unless we keep old deprecated
    "reveng-classes".

    I feel that such decisions should be made in a consensus, but usually I get
    little feedback with that..

    2008/12/20 Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org>
    I am feeling like the package for the new naming stuff, "access.reveng",
    should either be renamed or moved to some existing package. Two reasons:

    * Classes and interfaces there by themselves do not deal with "reverse
    engineering". They are used during reverse engineering by other classes
    located elsewhere (and can potentially be used for other things, e.g.
    creating an ObjEntity in the Modeler from a DbEntity.

    * Don't like using an abbreviation ("reveng"). We've been guilty of that in
    the past (ObjEntity), but now trying to stay away from abbrevs.

    Not completely sure where it would fit though.
    "org.apache.cayenne.map.naming" maybe?

    Andrus
  • Andrus Adamchik at Dec 20, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    While I have no objections to this renaming in general, you should
    know that
    this package was already distributed in M5. So this renaming can
    cause
    potential compilation problems unless we keep old deprecated
    "reveng-classes".
    We may go through a deprecation, but we don't have to. The promise
    about API stability that we give to our users is that *stable* API
    will be modified as gently as possible. Milestone releases are
    considered alpha and give us the freedom to modify newly introduced
    API's at will.
    I feel that such decisions should be made in a consensus, but
    usually I get
    little feedback with that..
    Absolutely. In fact what's at work here is "lazy consensus". If you
    suggest something and get no relevant feedback, you are absolutely
    within your rights as a committer to proceed with your initial idea.

    Andrus

    On Dec 20, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:

    Hi Andrus,

    While I have no objections to this renaming in general, you should
    know that
    this package was already distributed in M5. So this renaming can
    cause
    potential compilation problems unless we keep old deprecated
    "reveng-classes".

    I feel that such decisions should be made in a consensus, but
    usually I get
    little feedback with that..

    2008/12/20 Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org>
    I am feeling like the package for the new naming stuff,
    "access.reveng",
    should either be renamed or moved to some existing package. Two
    reasons:

    * Classes and interfaces there by themselves do not deal with
    "reverse
    engineering". They are used during reverse engineering by other
    classes
    located elsewhere (and can potentially be used for other things, e.g.
    creating an ObjEntity in the Modeler from a DbEntity.

    * Don't like using an abbreviation ("reveng"). We've been guilty of
    that in
    the past (ObjEntity), but now trying to stay away from abbrevs.

    Not completely sure where it would fit though.
    "org.apache.cayenne.map.naming" maybe?

    Andrus
  • Aristedes Maniatis at Dec 21, 2008 at 1:23 am

    On 20/12/2008, at 11:14 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:

    While I have no objections to this renaming in general, you should
    know that
    this package was already distributed in M5. So this renaming can
    cause
    potential compilation problems unless we keep old deprecated
    "reveng-classes".
    Andrey, I think the only things you should do now are:

    * create a Jira task with a short explanation of what was done
    * add to the RELEASE NOTES something like:

    API changes since M4:
    * access.reveng package has been renamed map.access


    Otherwise I agree that the only reason M5 wasn't called 3.0.5 is that
    there still remains greater flexibility to break backward
    compatibility. Which is why before we release 3.0, the whole
    generifying query discussion needs to be revisited...

    Ari



    -------------------------->
    ish
    http://www.ish.com.au
    Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
    phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
    GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
  • Mike Kienenberger at Dec 22, 2008 at 5:10 pm
    Not to mention that "reveng" looks like "revenge" in English.
    At first I thought someone was making a joke :-)

    On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
    I am feeling like the package for the new naming stuff, "access.reveng",
    should either be renamed or moved to some existing package. Two reasons:

    * Classes and interfaces there by themselves do not deal with "reverse
    engineering". They are used during reverse engineering by other classes
    located elsewhere (and can potentially be used for other things, e.g.
    creating an ObjEntity in the Modeler from a DbEntity.

    * Don't like using an abbreviation ("reveng"). We've been guilty of that in
    the past (ObjEntity), but now trying to stay away from abbrevs.

    Not completely sure where it would fit though.
    "org.apache.cayenne.map.naming" maybe?

    Andrus
  • Michael Gentry at Dec 23, 2008 at 2:19 pm
    Or "Access Revenge" ... like planting a backdoor.

    I agree with Andrus/Ari. No harm in making the change, just add it to
    the release notes.


    On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
    Not to mention that "reveng" looks like "revenge" in English.
    At first I thought someone was making a joke :-)

    On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
    I am feeling like the package for the new naming stuff, "access.reveng",
    should either be renamed or moved to some existing package. Two reasons:

    * Classes and interfaces there by themselves do not deal with "reverse
    engineering". They are used during reverse engineering by other classes
    located elsewhere (and can potentially be used for other things, e.g.
    creating an ObjEntity in the Modeler from a DbEntity.

    * Don't like using an abbreviation ("reveng"). We've been guilty of that in
    the past (ObjEntity), but now trying to stay away from abbrevs.

    Not completely sure where it would fit though.
    "org.apache.cayenne.map.naming" maybe?

    Andrus

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupdev @
categoriescayenne
postedDec 20, '08 at 11:51a
activeDec 23, '08 at 2:19p
posts6
users5
websitecayenne.apache.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase