My company strongly suggests to use subfolder names prefixed by digits for larger projects. This is recorded in the companies code convention articles.
This should look something like this
ApplicationRoot/
SomeSubFolder
00_SubSubFolder/
01_SubSubFolder/
02_SubSubFolder/
AnotherSubFolder
00_SubSubFolder/
01_SubSubFolder/
02_SubSubFolder/
Somehow this feels like an useless overhead to me but I have no valid arguments against that.
Maybe more experienced people can tell me about scenarios which show why this is a bad habit or tell my why it is good - besides the possibility to force the folder to be in a certain order?
it's useful only if the order is important (e.g. order of running scripts). otherwise it's bad (in my opinion). the arguments are:
some products don't allow it. e.g. java package structure maps directly to directory structure. but package name can't start with a digit.
can't use convention over configuration. some tools help you a lot with software development and they assume you are doing it same way as rest of the world (because it's a good practise). you will have a lot of configuration to make them accept your structure (e.g. maven)
human perception. we look for data by names, not by numbers. when i navigate to a file in e.g. krusader/total commander and i have a dozen of dirs i type a letter because i know the folder name.
confusion. if those numbers mean nothing then it introduces confusion to other people. they will always ask 'why', they will always affraid to modify add, remove because they will think someone did it because of some very important reason. that's a clear violation of KISS and least surprise principles (such things heavily affect new developers entry barrier)
no flexibility. sometimes it's good to have custom folder names. for whatever reason, e.g automatic search of configuration in multiple directories (often used in java/spring). but heaving such naming convention it's more difficult to do it. sometimes when you want to use automatic naming translation it also may be harder as your target format may not support names starting with digits (e.g. logins)
overhead. if there is no reason to keep it then any overhead should be removed. again: KISS
last but not least. developer/architect is always the one that makes decisions about software design, layout, used techniques etc. if his hands are tights because of senseless rules invented by non-technical bureaucrats from the previous epoch, that's nothing but troubles
Related
Why do you need to, in many instances, separate or breakdown one Use Case into two or more use cases?
The only reason to split a use case in multiple use cases is to share a significant piece of functionality among multiple use cases by isolating that piece of functionality in a separate use case.
Example: 'search product information' may be a separate use case included by use cases 'buy product' and 'hire product'.
Apart from 'include' there are also examples of the same principle using 'extend' or 'generalize'.
By doing so, you prevent that the shared behaviour is copied in multiple use cases, with the chance of growing inconsistencies.
In the previous example: We want to make sure that customers don't get a different way to search for product information when buying compared to when hiring products. With an included use case, people who read the use cases are immediately aware of that fact.
First of all: you don't. Starting to do that means you are doing functional analysis. The point in use case synthesis is to find the goal(s) (aka. added value) the different actors have when interacting with the system under consideration. It's quite futile to separate a goal into sub-goals at that level. Either you have some added value or you don't have it. So if someone has settled a use case and tries to break it down then the use case is either wrong (no use case) or it's useless since the use case already shows the added value.
My personal opinion about include and extend: they are basically evil and a wrong concept introduced by techies (which most of the UML designers are) with no business background. Using them means you are already starting functional analysis. But UCs are synthesized from requirements. That is, you drag your net through that requirements soup and fish out those that fit together to build a story which makes sense - and which delivers added value: a use case.
And as always: read Bittner/Spence about use cases.
I am designing a new YAML file, and I want to use the most standard style of naming. Which is it?
Hyphenated?
- job-name:
...
lower_case_with_underscores?
- job_name:
...
CamelCase?
- jobName:
...
Use the standard dictated by the surrounding software.
For example, in my current project the YAML file contains default values for Python attributes. Since the names used in YAML appear in the associated Python API, it is clear that on this particular project, the YAML names should obey the Python lower_case_with_underscores naming convention per PEP-8.
My next project might have a different prevailing naming convention, in which case I will use that in the associated YAML files.
Kubernetes using camelCase: https://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/jobs/
apiVersion, restartPolicy
CircleCI using snake_case: https://circleci.com/docs/1.0/configuration/
working_directory restore_cache, store_artifacts
Jenkins with dash-case: https://github.com/jenkinsci/yaml-project-plugin/blob/master/samples/google-cloud-storage/.jenkins.yaml
stapler-class
So it looks like projects and teams use their own conventions and there is no one definite standard.
A less popular opinion derived from years of experience:
TL;DR
Obviously stick to the convention but IMHO follow the one that is established in your project's YML files and not the one that comes with the dependencies. I dare to say naming convention depends on too many factors to give a definitive answer or even try to describe a good practice other than "have some".
Full answer
Libraries might change over time which leads to multiple naming conventions in one config more often than any sane programmer would like - you can't do much about it unless you want to introduce (and later maintain) a whole new abstraction layer dedicated to just that: keeping the parameter naming convention pristine.
A one example of why you would want a different naming convention in your configs vs. configs that came with the dependencies is searchability, e.g. if all dependencies use a parameter named request_id, naming yours request-id or requestId will make it distinct and easily searchable while not hurting how descriptive the name is.
Also, it sometimes makes sense to have multiple parameters with the same name nested in different namespaces. In that case it might be justified to invent a whole new naming convention based on some existing ones, e.g.:
order.request-id.format and
notification.request-id.format
While it probably isn't necessary for your IDE to differentiate between the two (as it's able to index parameters within the namespace) you might consider doing so anyway as a courtesy for your peers - not only other developers who could use different IDEs but especially DevOps and admins who usually do use less specialized tools during maintenance, migrations and deployment.
Finally, another good point raised by one of my colleagues is that distinctive parameter names can be easily converted into a different convention with something as simple as one awk command. Doing so the other way around is obviously possible but by an order of magnitude more complicated which often spawns debates in the KISS advocates community about what it really means to "keep it simple stupid".
The conclusion is: do what's most sensible to you and your team.
We're doing a big project on OSGi and adding some commons modules. There's some discussion about naming the artifact.
So, one possibility when naming the module is for example:
cmns-definitions (for common definitions), another is cmns-definition, still another is cmns-def. This has some effect also on the package name. Now it's
xx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.commons.definitions, if changing to cmns-def it would be xx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.commons.def.
Inside this package will be classes like enums and other definitions to be used throughout the system.
I personally lean to cmns-definitions since there's not only 1 definition inside the package. Other people point out that java.util doesn't have only 1 utility there for example. Still, java.util is an abbreviation for me. It can mean java utility or java utilities. Same thing happens with commons-lang.
How would you name the package? Why would you choose this name?
cmns-definitions
cmns-definition
cmns-def
Bonus question: How to name something like cmns-exceptions? That's how I name it. Would you name it cmns-xcpt?
ËDIT:
I'm throwing in my own thoughts on this in the hope of being either confirmed or contradicted. If you can, please do.
According to what I think, the background reason why you name something is to make it easier to understand what's inside it. Or, according to Peter Kriens, to make it easy to remember and being able to automate processes via patterns. Both are valid arguments.
My reasoning is as follows in terms of pattern:
1) When a substantivation occurs and it's well known in the industry, follow it on your naming.
Eg:
"features" is a case on this. We have a module called cmns-features. Does this mean we have many features on this module? No. It means "the module that implements the "features" file from Apache karaf".
"commons" is a substantivation of "common" well-accepted on the industry. It doesn't mean "many common". It means "Common code".
If I see extr-commons as a module name, I know that it contains common code for extr (in this case extraction), for example.
2) When a quantity of classes inside the module are cooperating to give a distinct "one and one only" meaning to the whole, use singular form to name it.
The majority of modules are included here. If I name something cmns-persistence-jpa, I mean that whatever classes inside cooperate together to provide the jpa implementation of cmns-persistence-api. I don't expect 2 implementations inside it, but actually a myriad of classes that together make one implementation. Crystal clear to me. No?
3) When a grouping of classes is done with the sole purpose of gathering classes by affinity, but the classes don't cooperate together to no purpose, use plural.
Here is the case for example of cmns-definitions (enums used by the whole system).
Alternatively, using an abbreviation circumvents the problem, e.g. cmns-def which can be also "interpreted expanded" by a human reader to cmns-definitions. Many people use also "xxxx-util" meaning xxxx-utilities.
Still a third option can be used to pack things together, using a name that itself means a pluralization. The word "api" comes to mind, but any word that pluralizes something would do, like "pack".
Support to these cases (3) are well-known modules like commons-collections (using the plural) or commons-dbcp (using abbreviation) or commons-lang (again abbreviation) and anything that uses api to pack classes together by affinity.
From apache:
commons-collections -> many powerful data structures that accelerate development of most significant Java applications
commons-lang -> host of helper utilities for the java.lang API
commons-dbcp -> package of several database connection pools
'it is just a name ...'
I find in my long career that these just names can make a tremendous difference in productivity. I do not think it makes a difference if you use definitions, definition, or def as long as you're consistent and use patterns in the name that are easy to remember and can be used to automate processes. A build based on a consistent naming scheme is infinitely easier to work with than a build with "nice human display" names that are ad-hoc and have no discernible pattern.
If you use patterns, names tend to become shorter. Now people working with these names usually spent a lot of time with them. So their readability is not nearly as important as their mnemonic value. It turns out that abbreviations of 3 or 4 characters are surprisingly powerful. One of the reason is they work well is that there is only one possible abbreviation while if you go longer there are many candidates.
Anyway, most import part is the overall consistency. Good luck.
definitions (or def or definition) is a bad name because it doesn't have any semantic to a reader. You're in an object oriented world (I suppose) - try to follow its conventions and principles. Modules in Maven should be named after the biggest "abstraction" they contain. "Definition" is a form, not a meaning.
Your question is similar to: "Which class name is better FileUtilities or FileUtils". Answer: none.
Basically what you do with the Definitions and Exceptions is to provide kind of an API for your other modules. So I propose to combine definitions, exceptions and add interfaces to it. Then it makes sense to call it all cmns-api. I normally prefer the singular names as they are shorter but you are free to decide as it is just a name.
FxCop thought me (basically, from memory) that functions, classes and properties should be written in MajorCamelCase, while private variables should be in minorCamelCase.
I was talking about a reasonably popular project on IRC and quoted some code. One other guy, a fairly notorious troll who was also a half-op (gasp!) didn't seem to agree. Everything oughta be in the same casing, and he quite fervently favored MajorCamelCase, or even underscore_separation.
Ofcourse, he was just a troll so I reckoned I'd just keep doing it the way I already did. Before I learned the above guidelines, I hardly even had a coherent naming style.
He got me thinking, though -- does stuff like this really matter?
You need to make sure that your code is readable in the future. Please remember that you might want to pass the development of your application to someone else and this person will need to read and understand it. You could stop actively working on a project and return to it after a year - and be suprised that you have to read code carefully to understand how it works.
I believe it was Steve McConnell who said that specific naming style does not really matter (you could use anything you want as long as you are consistent) but this only applies when everyone working on the project agree with you.
In general it is better to adopt community-accepted coding styles where possible to facilitate code reuse and shorten learning curves.
If you don't care about long-term maintanability of your project (or consistency or readability) then no, casing (and coding conventions in general) don't really matter. Otherwise, they do matter. See this.
Your specific coding style doesn't matter (much), so long as it is consistent throughout the project.
This improves readability and understanding, as if an identifier is named in a particular way, the reader can (hopefully) be confident as to what that naming style implies.
As regards CamelCase v underscores, etc: again, it's down to your coding convention. One approach which uses both is to apply a prefix with underscore to indicate the module in which the function, or file-scope/global variable, is used, e.g. Config_Update(), Status_Get().
I am writing a coding standards document for a team of about 15 developers with a project load of between 10 and 15 projects a year. Amongst other sections (which I may post here as I get to them) I am writing a section on code formatting. So to start with, I think it is wise that, for whatever reason, we establish some basic, consistent code formatting/naming standards.
I've looked at roughly 10 projects written over the last 3 years from this team and I'm, obviously, finding a pretty wide range of styles. Contractors come in and out and at times, and sometimes even double the team size.
I am looking for a few suggestions for code formatting and naming standards that have really paid off ... but that can also really be justified. I think consistency and shared-patterns go a long way to making the code more maintainable ... but, are there other things I ought to consider when defining said standards?
How do you lineup parenthesis? Do you follow the same parenthesis guidelines when dealing with classes, methods, try catch blocks, switch statements, if else blocks, etc.
Do you line up fields on a column? Do you notate/prefix private variables with an underscore? Do you follow any naming conventions to make it easier to find particulars in a file? How do you order the members of your class?
What about suggestions for namespaces, packaging or source code folder/organization standards? I tend to start with something like:
<com|org|...>.<company>.<app>.<layer>.<function>.ClassName
I'm curious to see if there are other, more accepted, practices than what I am accustomed to -- before I venture off dictating these standards. Links to standards already published online would be great too -- even though I've done a bit of that already.
First find a automated code-formatter that works with your language. Reason: Whatever the document says, people will inevitably break the rules. It's much easier to run code through a formatter than to nit-pick in a code review.
If you're using a language with an existing standard (e.g. Java, C#), it's easiest to use it, or at least start with it as a first draft. Sun put a lot of thought into their formatting rules; you might as well take advantage of it.
In any case, remember that much research has shown that varying things like brace position and whitespace use has no measurable effect on productivity or understandability or prevalence of bugs. Just having any standard is the key.
Coming from the automotive industry, here's a few style standards used for concrete reasons:
Always used braces in control structures, and place them on separate lines. This eliminates problems with people adding code and including it or not including it mistakenly inside a control structure.
if(...)
{
}
All switches/selects have a default case. The default case logs an error if it's not a valid path.
For the same reason as above, any if...elseif... control structures MUST end with a default else that also logs an error if it's not a valid path. A single if statement does not require this.
In the occasional case where a loop or control structure is intentionally empty, a semicolon is always placed within to indicate that this is intentional.
while(stillwaiting())
{
;
}
Naming standards have very different styles for typedefs, defined constants, module global variables, etc. Variable names include type. You can look at the name and have a good idea of what module it pertains to, its scope, and type. This makes it easy to detect errors related to types, etc.
There are others, but these are the top off my head.
-Adam
I'm going to second Jason's suggestion.
I just completed a standards document for a team of 10-12 that work mostly in perl. The document says to use "perltidy-like indentation for complex data structures." We also provided everyone with example perltidy settings that would clean up their code to meet this standard. It was very clear and very much industry-standard for the language so we had great buyoff on it by the team.
When setting out to write this document, I asked around for some examples of great code in our repository and googled a bit to find other standards documents that smarter architects than I to construct a template. It was tough being concise and pragmatic without crossing into micro-manager territory but very much worth it; having any standard is indeed key.
Hope it works out!
It obviously varies depending on languages and technologies. By the look of your example name space I am going to guess java, in which case http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/ is a really good place to start. You might also want to look at something like maven's standard directory structure which will make all your projects look similar.