Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy

Long names are a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. Having spent FAR more time than I care to admit working with IBM crap that uses name like QXMGRTBL and QWRKQITM, I'll take TransactionAwarePersistanceManagerFactoryProxy any day... and twice on Sunday.

The only bit about this that even strikes me as a little bit unreasonable is the "Proxy" bit at the end. Not sure why you need another level of Proxy on top of TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactory, but it's not like you type that name particularly often. Most likely it's referenced once in a Spring config file somewhere, and given a bean name of "persistenceManagerFactory" which is what would be referenced in code once at most. Hell, probably not even that... that's probably wired into another bean that just gives you the PersistenceManager... which you might not actually ever reference in code either, since Spring can auto generate JPA implementation classes that use JPQL queries, etc., and eliminate the need for most hand coding of anything JPA related.

OK, sure, just to look at it, at first blush, the name looks long and silly, but when you actually think about what it is and how it's used, it's not exactly a big deal.

Re: Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy

#5

Post by jlgreco » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 10:14 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #4

Long names are a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. Having spent FAR more time than I care to admit working with IBM crap that uses name like QXMGRTBL and QWRKQITM, I'll take TransactionAwarePersistanceManagerFactoryProxy any day... and twice on Sunday. The only bit about this that even strikes me as a little bit unreasonable is the "Proxy" bit at the end. Not sure why you need another level of Proxy on top of Trans…

> Long names are a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. Having spent FAR more time than I care to admit working with IBM crap that uses name like QXMGRTBL and QWRKQITM, I'll take TransactionAwarePersistanceManagerFactoryProxy any day... and twice on Sunday.

Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. It is reasonable to expect clear and descriptive names that do not reach the level of verbosity that seems to be idiomatic in Java.

Re: Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy

#6

Post by michaelerule » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 10:16 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #5

mindcrime wrote: post #4

Long names are a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. Having spent FAR more time than I care to admit working with IBM crap that uses name like QXMGRTBL and QWRKQITM, I'll take TransactionAwarePersistanceManagerFactoryProxy any day... and twice on Sunday. The only bit about this that even strikes me as a little bit unreasonable is the "Proxy" bit at the end. Not sure why you need another level of Proxy on top of Trans…

> Long names are a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. Having spent FAR more time than I care to admit working with IBM crap that uses name like QXMGRTBL and QWRKQITM, I'll take TransactionAwarePersistanceManagerFactoryProxy any day... and twice on Sunday. Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. It is reasonable to expect clear and descriptive names that do not reach the level of verbosity that seems to be idiomatic i…

idiomatic? ( I am unfamiliar with the meaning of "idiomatic" in this context, I suspect this is programming language jargon? )

Re: Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy

#7

Post by finnw » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 10:17 PM UTC

Reminds me of one of mine: http://stackoverflow.com/q/137060/12048

Re: Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy

#8

Post by kcorbitt » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 10:20 PM UTC

michaelerule wrote: post #6

jlgreco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Long names are a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. Having spent FAR more time than I care to admit working with IBM crap that uses name like QXMGRTBL and QWRKQITM, I'll take TransactionAwarePersistanceManagerFactoryProxy any day... and twice on Sunday. Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. It is reasonable to expect clear and descriptive names that do not reach the level of verbosity that seems to be idiomatic i…

idiomatic? ( I am unfamiliar with the meaning of "idiomatic" in this context, I suspect this is programming language jargon? )

Idiomatic in this context is a synonym of "typical". It's possible to write Java with shorter class names, but they typically tend to be long.

Re: Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy

#9

Post by shmerl » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 10:22 PM UTC

Camel notation looks awful with so many words. C++ style with underscores is way more readable.

Re: Unsure if I understand TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy

#10

Post by jlgreco » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 10:22 PM UTC

michaelerule wrote: post #6

jlgreco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Long names are a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. Having spent FAR more time than I care to admit working with IBM crap that uses name like QXMGRTBL and QWRKQITM, I'll take TransactionAwarePersistanceManagerFactoryProxy any day... and twice on Sunday. Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. It is reasonable to expect clear and descriptive names that do not reach the level of verbosity that seems to be idiomatic i…

idiomatic? ( I am unfamiliar with the meaning of "idiomatic" in this context, I suspect this is programming language jargon? )

"Up to expected standards" or "how it is generally seen" I suppose.

So for a more neutral example, CamelCaseClasses are "idiomatic" in Java, whereas classes_with_underscores are not. You could do either but the first is considered a more "correct" way to write Java, and is what you tend to see in the wild.