On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Daniel Rall wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: ... >>> 3) Looks like you renamed SVNClient to Client. I think I would prefer >>> the old name just because it can be a nuisance if someone has another >>> class named Client (which seems like a potentially common name). >> >> Ditto, keep the prefix. > > I kinda don't see the point, since it's redundant with the package name, but > if you (as a consumer) feel it'd be best, we can change it back.
Because Java package names tend to be verbose, it's annoying to have to fully-qualify package members (e.g. org.apache.subversion.javahl.Client vs. SVNClient). In any non-trivial n-tiered application, you usually end up with multiple "client" classes; this particular name collision comes up often, so it's best to do what you can to avoid it in the first place using short prefixes like "SVN".
