Re: Aspect questions?

From:

Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:04:24 -0800

Message-ID:

<jii1q4$f45$1@news.albasani.net>

Arne Vajh??j wrote:

Hmmm.

I can not disagree that logical grouping is a driver for package
structure.

But I don't believe that there is a single possible logical
grouping.

I agree with you on this point.

Let us compare:

1)

com.foobar

2)

com.foobar.a
com.foobar.b

3)

com.foobar.a.x
com.foobar.a.y
com.foobar.b.z
com.foobar.b.w

4)

com.foobar.a.x.bla
com.foobar.a.x.blabla
com.foobar.a.y.zzz
com.foobar.a.y.zzzzz
com.foobar.b.z.one
com.foobar.b.z.two
com.foobar.b.w.lion
com.foobar.b.w.tiger

In all of these 4 options the classes can be logical grouped.

The question is at what granularity do you want to split.

Everything in one package is not good.

One package per class is not good.

But somewhere in between one need to pick a level of
granularity.

And packages was not invented for fun but to help the
developer.

So one should pick the level of granularity that makes it
easiest to find things.

According to this source:

http://binstock.blogspot.com/2008/04/perfecting-oos-small-classes-and-short.html
then Thougthworks has recommended "no more than 10 classes per package".

That seems a bit on the low side for me.

YMMV

You illustrate one way in which programming is a matter of art.

Ultimately you do what makes the most sense to you at the time. This is where
Patricia's advice to refactor willingly (but not willy-nilly, of course) takes
the heat off having to have one right answer right away.

???A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.???
??? General George S. Patton, Jr., U.S. Army

(Gods! I hear this in George C. Scott's voice. I can't help it.)

--
Lew
No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.