DWT package mapping?

[John Reimer]

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?
>>> 
>> 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.
> 

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