-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Let us hide the "lib" in com.tightdb.lib.Table #47
Labels
Comments
ghost
assigned bmunkholm
Aug 19, 2012
The last alternative is more verbose. I suggest to move it to com.tightdb. |
ghost
assigned nmihajlovski
Aug 27, 2012
Maybe consider if all the highlevel should be under "com.tigthdb", and all the lowlevel under "com.tightdb.lowlevel" |
nmihajlovski
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 3, 2012
Closed
This was referenced Aug 17, 2020
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
I don't much like the "lib" part of
First of all, the word "lib" does not really say anything that would help the customer understand why Table would be located there rather than in "com.tightdb". Secondly, I believe it is a very small change to eliminate it, since Table is the only class that the customer is likely to ever have to refer to in that package.
If we moved the Table annotation class to com.tightdb, the customer could simply write
For now he needs at least
Another improvement (though less attractive in my opinion) would be to move Table to "com.tightdb.annotations", it seems that convention is fairly widespread:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: