Re: [Geotools-devel] Naming geotools classes

[Martin D. <mar...@te...>]

Cameron Shorter wrote:
> I'm thinking about using the following names:
> 
> * interface MapPane (extends Widget)
> * class JMapPane (which extends JPanel implements MapPane)  I'm using "J" in 
> keeping with swing naming conventions.
> 
> * interface Tool
> * interface PanTool (extends Tool)
> 
> * class ToolImpl (implements Tool)
> * class PanToolImpl (extends ToolImpl, implements PanTool)
> 
> Any comments before I set things in stone?
> 

Do we have alternative proposal for ToolImpl and PanToolImpl? I usually 
prefer to avoid "Impl" suffix...

An other though: Do we plan to harmonize interfaces with the OpenGIS's 
naming convention? All OpenGIS's implementation specification I'm aware 
of (namely CTS and GCS) use the following naming convention:

     org.opengis.[two letter package name].[package again]_Interface

For example:

     org.opengis.cs.CS_CoordinateSystem
     org.opengis.gc.GC_GridCoverage

etc. Of course, we can't use the "org.opengis" domain name. But if we 
plan to use more OpenGIS interfaces in the future, or if we may turn 
some of our interfaces into an OpenGIS proposal later, then more OpenGIS 
compliant interfaces names for Geotools may be:

     org.geotools.ui.UI_MapPane      (org.opengis.... in the future?)
     org.geotools.ui.UI_Tool         (org.opengis.... in the future?)
     org.geotools.ui.UI_PanTool      (org.opengis.... in the future?)

I agree that the "UI_" suffix is uggly, but this is the way OpenGIS do. 
They want the same interface names in Java than structure names in C (or 
any other language) and not all language separate package as clearly 
than Java.

If interface are going to be (in the future) org.opengis.ui.UI_MapPane, 
then we are free to use the plain MapPane name for Java implementation 
(this is what I do in CTS and GCS module). Since Swing, AWT and SWT 
implementations will not be mixed in normal use, then I see no problem 
in using the same name for different implementations, e.g.

     org.geotools.gui.swing.MapPane
     org.geotools.gui.awt.MapPane
     org.geotools.gui.swt.MapPane


We should have no conflict, since normal users will probably never use 
Swing and SWT implementations together (Swing and SWT are not designed 
to work together). Furhermore, it make is easy to switch implementation. 
A user may replace:

     import org.geotools.gui.swing.*;

by

     import org.geotools.gui.swt.*;

And a fair amount of the code should compile with no more change. In the 
very exceptional cases where a user really want to mix both packages, he 
can always use fully qualified name.


	Regards,

		Martin.