www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.dwt - DWT package mapping?

reply Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
At the moment there are these mappings

org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
org.eclipse     -> dwtx

Symbols:
SWT             -> DWT
SWTError        -> DWTError
SWTException    -> DWTException
...

But there are more candidates for the dwt project.

com.novocode    -> ??
com.ibm.icu     -> ??
org.osgi        -> ??

Where to put them?
And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
collective imports help?

What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.

So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
Would that work? What do you think?
Oct 21 2008
next sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:
 At the moment there are these mappings
 
 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx
 
 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...
 
 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
 
 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??
 
 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
 collective imports help?
 
 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
 
 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
 Would that work? What do you think?

I find that when porting stuff, renaming is not a good option. Take for instance Descent. It kept all the names of JDT unchanged, and that makes it very easy to add new code, make plugins work almost out of the box, etc. When I started Descent, I thought about renaming stuff like IJavaProject to IDeeProject, or something similar, but I asked the PHPEclipse guys what did they do, since they also used JDT's code base. They replied to me saying that they renamed IJavaProject to IPhpProject, things like that, big mistake, and that they were having a bad time getting updates from newer JDT releases, and that I should not do the same as they did. So my advice is to just keep the original names. Anyway, the S in SWT means Standard, so SWT for D is not bad. :-P
Oct 21 2008
next sibling parent Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig schrieb:
 I find that when porting stuff, renaming is not a good option. Take for
 instance Descent. It kept all the names of JDT unchanged, and that makes
 it very easy to add new code, make plugins work almost out of the box, etc.
 
 When I started Descent, I thought about renaming stuff like IJavaProject
 to IDeeProject, or something similar, but I asked the PHPEclipse guys
 what did they do, since they also used JDT's code base. They replied to
 me saying that they renamed IJavaProject to IPhpProject, things like
 that, big mistake, and that they were having a bad time getting updates
 from newer JDT releases, and that I should not do the same as they did.
 
 So my advice is to just keep the original names. Anyway, the S in SWT
 means Standard, so SWT for D is not bad. :-P

Thanks for your feedback.
Oct 21 2008
prev sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Frank Benoit wrote:
 At the moment there are these mappings

 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx

 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...

 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.

 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??

 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
 collective imports help?

 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.

 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
 Would that work? What do you think?

I find that when porting stuff, renaming is not a good option. Take for instance Descent. It kept all the names of JDT unchanged, and that makes it very easy to add new code, make plugins work almost out of the box, etc. When I started Descent, I thought about renaming stuff like IJavaProject to IDeeProject, or something similar, but I asked the PHPEclipse guys what did they do, since they also used JDT's code base. They replied to me saying that they renamed IJavaProject to IPhpProject, things like that, big mistake, and that they were having a bad time getting updates from newer JDT releases, and that I should not do the same as they did. So my advice is to just keep the original names. Anyway, the S in SWT means Standard, so SWT for D is not bad. :-P

Yup, if the port/change was to be made only once, it would probably not be a problem, but if one wants to integrate the future updates and patches, it gets complicated. Still, I think it still might be reasonable to maintain changes for the *package* names. They barely change, and are referenced probably only in import statements at the top of a file, so that should not make the task of merging new SWT updates significantly harder. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Oct 24 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent aarti_pl <aarti interia.pl> writes:
Frank Benoit pisze:
 At the moment there are these mappings
 
 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx
 
 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ....
 
 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
 
 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??
 
 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
 collective imports help?
 
 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
 
 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
 Would that work? What do you think?
 

I generally prefer shorter names. They are simpler and nicer IMHO. I would say that it is C++ way of naming packages, and this way is working quite good. Very deep hierarchies e.g. make me crazy when I have to get to file with file manager. Fortunately problem with deep directory hierarchy can be solved using good IDE. Saying all above I also think that it is much more important for D to have more libraries translated from Java, than to change artificially names of packages just to get nicer names. Also keeping same names as in original library allows for easier porting snippets/pieces of code from Java. So if it makes problems to change original names to D specific names, I think that original names should be retained. BR Marcin Kuszczak (aarti_pl)
Oct 21 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:57:09 -0200
Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote:

 So my advice is to just keep the original names. Anyway, the S in SWT 
 means Standard, so SWT for D is not bad. :-P

You can say that again. Keep the original names is a good idea. -- yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com> http://www.dsource.org/projects/dwin D -(D Chinese): http://www.d-programming-language-china.org/ http://bbs.d-programming-language-china.org/ http://dwin.d-programming-language-china.org/ http://scite4d.d-programming-language-china.org/
Oct 21 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:
 At the moment there are these mappings
 
 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx
 
 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...
 
 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
 
 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??
 
 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
 collective imports help?
 
 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
 
 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
 Would that work? What do you think?

I would say even if you rename the imports, don't rename the project (i.e. the website, logo, etc.). DWT is a catchy name, even if using "DWT" requires you to import something in org.swt
Oct 21 2008
parent Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
Robert Fraser schrieb:
 Frank Benoit wrote:
 At the moment there are these mappings

 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx

 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...

 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.

 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??

 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
 collective imports help?

 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.

 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
 Would that work? What do you think?

I would say even if you rename the imports, don't rename the project (i.e. the website, logo, etc.). DWT is a catchy name, even if using "DWT" requires you to import something in org.swt

Yes, that is not what i want. I am just thinking about the package name and symbols.
Oct 21 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:27:15 +0200, Frank Benoit wrote:

 At the moment there are these mappings
 
 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx
 
 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...
 
 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
 
 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??
 
 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
 collective imports help?
 
 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
 
 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
 Would that work? What do you think?

I do like the DWT naming, org.eclipse is not very appealing, but ultimately it is still eclipse's SWT. I think a question would be, how much work would it take to revert back to swt stuff (guessing not much with automation). I think going back to the original will likely help in its evolution, which says to me "good."
Oct 21 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Frank,

 At the moment there are these mappings
 
 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx
 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...
 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
 
 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??
 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new
 packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs
 and
 collective imports help?
 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
 
 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the
 original? Would that work? What do you think?
 

DWT really is SWT throughout. Even the coding style is almost completely Java-like. I think that the only reason it remains DWT is because of the original porting precedent that chose the name. :) It wouldn't bother me if DWT reverted back to the SWT name. In fact, that probably makes a lot of sense. I'm guessing that it might even receive more recognition as a genuine SWT port from the SWT team and others if it were to revert to that name. BUT, I really really hope we don't adopt the long package names so typical of the Java realm. "org.eclipse.*" prepended to the dwt namespace would be painful. That's one Javaism that I hope stays away from D. But, if there are some REALLY good reasons that the complete package names should be included, maybe I could be made to agree. I'm not very enthusiastic about Java in general, so anything that reminds me too much of Java or causes me to forget that I'm actually using D (which is supposed to improve the programmer's life)... is not good. That's my opinion, anyway. :) -JJR
Oct 21 2008
parent reply Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
John Reimer schrieb:
 Hello Frank,
 
 At the moment there are these mappings

 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx
 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...
 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.

 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??
 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new
 packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs
 and
 collective imports help?
 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.

 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the
 original? Would that work? What do you think?

DWT really is SWT throughout. Even the coding style is almost completely Java-like. I think that the only reason it remains DWT is because of the original porting precedent that chose the name. :) It wouldn't bother me if DWT reverted back to the SWT name. In fact, that probably makes a lot of sense. I'm guessing that it might even receive more recognition as a genuine SWT port from the SWT team and others if it were to revert to that name. BUT, I really really hope we don't adopt the long package names so typical of the Java realm. "org.eclipse.*" prepended to the dwt namespace would be painful. That's one Javaism that I hope stays away from D. But, if there are some REALLY good reasons that the complete package names should be included, maybe I could be made to agree. I'm not very enthusiastic about Java in general, so anything that reminds me too much of Java or causes me to forget that I'm actually using D (which is supposed to improve the programmer's life)... is not good. That's my opinion, anyway. :) -JJR

I was really not asking for renaming the DWT project. I think the name is ok. DWT started as a SWT port but now, there is much more else. Changing the Symbol DWT back to SWT, well i never liked to rename it. It is the same reason i never wanted to rename jface to dface. The source is ported, but it is still SWT. And renaming is a bit like hiding the origin, which is not what i want. About the package name. How would you map org.eclipse.osgi and org.osgi? How to map non-eclipse packages?
Oct 21 2008
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Frank,

 John Reimer schrieb:
 
 Hello Frank,
 
 At the moment there are these mappings
 
 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx
 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...
 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??
 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new
 packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs
 and
 collective imports help?
 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all
 over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the
 original? Would that work? What do you think?
 

completely Java-like. I think that the only reason it remains DWT is because of the original porting precedent that chose the name. :) It wouldn't bother me if DWT reverted back to the SWT name. In fact, that probably makes a lot of sense. I'm guessing that it might even receive more recognition as a genuine SWT port from the SWT team and others if it were to revert to that name. BUT, I really really hope we don't adopt the long package names so typical of the Java realm. "org.eclipse.*" prepended to the dwt namespace would be painful. That's one Javaism that I hope stays away from D. But, if there are some REALLY good reasons that the complete package names should be included, maybe I could be made to agree. I'm not very enthusiastic about Java in general, so anything that reminds me too much of Java or causes me to forget that I'm actually using D (which is supposed to improve the programmer's life)... is not good. That's my opinion, anyway. :) -JJR

is ok. DWT started as a SWT port but now, there is much more else.

Oh! I see now. I really didn't get it. I agree. Dwt /project/ name can stay as is. :)
 Changing the Symbol DWT back to SWT, well i never liked to rename it.
 It is the same reason i never wanted to rename jface to dface. The
 source is ported, but it is still SWT. And renaming is a bit like
 hiding the origin, which is not what i want.
 

Yes, this should be okay to do, although I suppose if we change the package name back to swt, it might be slightly confusing if the project name is not the same. But perhaps it doesn't really matter? It seems that at least a few people here support the idea of keeping the project name as is, even if the package name changes back (which might be a good idea).
 About the package name.
 How would you map org.eclipse.osgi and org.osgi?
 How to map non-eclipse packages?

Good question. At first, like I said, I felt slightly disagreeable about the idea of keeping long package names... but perhaps that's not critical in the long term because these packages /could/ easily be aliased differently if there existed enough demand for that. In the meantime, perhaps just adopt those /long/ package names and stick them in the addons directory. I'm not sure if they should be added under dwtx or not. For now, perhaps just leave them in the root project directory like so without mapping (excepting dwtx): ./dwtx ./org/eclipse/osgi ./com/novocode ./com/ibm/icu Like I said, these could be aliased later if necessary to a short package name. Perhaps consider to do the same with dwtx if this works out. What do you think? -JJR
Oct 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Olli Aalto <oaalto gmail.com> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:
 At the moment there are these mappings
 
 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx
 
 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...
 
 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
 
 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??
 
 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
 collective imports help?
 
 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
 
 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
 Would that work? What do you think?
 
 

I vote for keeping the original names completely. A decent IDE will generate the needed imports for you anyway, so you don't have to type them. O.
Oct 21 2008
prev sibling parent Spacen Jasset <spacenjasset yahoo.co.uk> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:
 At the moment there are these mappings
 
 org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
 org.eclipse     -> dwtx
 
 Symbols:
 SWT             -> DWT
 SWTError        -> DWTError
 SWTException    -> DWTException
 ...
 
 But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
 
 com.novocode    -> ??
 com.ibm.icu     -> ??
 org.osgi        -> ??
 
 Where to put them?
 And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
 But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
 collective imports help?
 
 What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
 again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
 
 So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
 Would that work? What do you think?
 
 

could be put in place. I am not really afraid of longish import names, in general you only have to type them once at the top of the file. Contrast this with c++ where you have to type a long story in the middle of your code. On the other hand you may need to reward yourself for the hard work you have put in on the project and so rename away and make it more comfortable, but I don't know how that should map exactly. Perhaps consider 'specificity' and how much meaning each part of the name contributes. Where, persuambly dwt. could always start an import decleration.
Oct 23 2008