Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Aspect questions?
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:04:24 -0800
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <jii1q4$f45$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <XnsA0039B9FFFA32jpnasty@94.75.214.39> <ji8u23$f6m$1@news.albasani.net> <XnsA00493ECED98jpnasty@94.75.214.39> <jia398$bho$1@news.albasani.net> <XnsA0047B96E59BFjpnasty@94.75.214.39> <jibf3u$ee9$1@news.albasani.net> <XnsA004B034AE631jpnasty@94.75.214.39> <jibn8n$17s$1@news.albasani.net> <XnsA004BD220634Ejpnasty@94.75.214.39> <jibso4$bv2$1@news.albasani.net> <XnsA0057F0ABEC37jpnasty@94.75.214.39> <4f4a6b1d$0$290$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <XnsA005A56D659E8jpnasty@94.75.214.39> <4f4ac151$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <jiekrs$tk3$2@news.albasani.net> <4f4ad9ff$0$292$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <jif4aq$tnp$1@news.albasani.net> <4f4c3df1$0$281$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net hsm86X6VqdLi1/jNh53lePf2SP+0nvNhSj6CbcjzLKUT5THkNsCJQX+EC1jlBL6GjiPY9PxhSs2pzVqx6VavtkBwghpTXU9rWRAeXRGUrJvKasS2c3vI/zVi/O/Ebdz0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:04:20 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="8i5NpJJFcqLxpK6fzv5DGDuTNAslUljpbxu4iBHU+p2Z4UMYotAGc1+bzBX4VpjGYC8MdydFjDwVc0Doiy4ahGitOJADHsXcEprFZvkWWRno0YmUd7jqcZZYbL4Wn5f/"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
In-Reply-To: <4f4c3df1$0$281$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:stsrmncJyxefxlNbOCmrxs6Hr8E=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:12480

Arne Vajhøj 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.