 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / November 2005Why should we give the same name.............
In Java suppose we have a class with class name Example. In the class we have written the main() method. when saving the file that contains the source code of class Example why should we give the name of the file as same as the name of the class that is as Example.java ? On 3 Nov 2005 23:47:37 -0800, "corejavagroups" <sankar_battula@yahoo.co.in> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >when saving the file that contains the source code of class Example >why should we give the name of the file as same as the name of the >class that is as Example.java ? so that the compiler can easily find the source code or class files if some other class references that class.. It needs to see how the the referenced class is defined to generate code that uses it.  SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. > On 3 Nov 2005 23:47:37 -0800, "corejavagroups" > <sankar_battula@yahoo.co.in> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > if some other class references that class.. It needs to see how the > the referenced class is defined to generate code that uses it. And so that us humans stand a chance of finding the right file (in a sensible period of time and with minimal effort). Tom Hawtin SignatureUnemployed English Java programmer http://jroller.com/page/tackline/ On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:49:00 +0000, Thomas Hawtin <usenet@tackline.plus.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >>>when saving the file that contains the source code of class Example >>>why should we give the name of the file as same as the name of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >And so that us humans stand a chance of finding the right file (in a >sensible period of time and with minimal effort). one thing I find odd is that package scope classes can piggyback on the source code of a public class. There is no easy way for javac to find them. It must go looking in all the *.java classes in a package directory. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. > On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:49:00 +0000, Thomas Hawtin > <usenet@tackline.plus.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > find them. It must go looking in all the *.java classes in a package > directory. I believe that it uses the name of the classes anyway - if you compile a source file with three classes, two non-public obviously, you get three, properly named class files. I expect it builds up that mapping first, and then uses that from there. AFAIR even 'back in the day' the source naming thing was motivated more by consistency and readability (and maybe an easier time for implementors) than the need for javac to find sources. SignatureRoss Bamford - rosco@roscopeco.remove.co.uk >> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:49:00 +0000, Thomas Hawtin >> <usenet@tackline.plus.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > consistency and readability (and maybe an easier time for implementors) > than the need for javac to find sources. Absolutely. This was a deliberately introduced system to encourage better styles of organization. -- LTP :) >>>one thing I find odd is that package scope classes can piggyback on >>>the source code of a public class. There is no easy way for javac to >>>find them. It must go looking in all the *.java classes in a package >>>directory. > Absolutely. This was a deliberately introduced system to encourage better > styles of organization. Come to think of it, allowing package private outer classes made more sense in JDK 1.00. With no nested classes, every class was an outer class. If you had lots of small classes involved with a single class implementation then there could have been huge numbers of tiny files, mostly consisting of import statements. Tom Hawtin SignatureUnemployed English Java programmer http://jroller.com/page/tackline/ > Come to think of it, allowing package private outer classes made more > sense in JDK 1.00. With no nested classes, every class was an outer class. > If you had lots of small classes involved with a single class > implementation then there could have been huge numbers of tiny files, > mostly consisting of import statements. You are not implying that that is better though? -- LTP :) What? in a sensible period of time with minimal effort? oh right this isnt C ;) Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.