Re: Style question: deep inheritance

[Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov>]

David95038@aol.com (David Kristola) writes:

> <snip>  So, portal
> specific operations can be found in
> SAM.Entities.Things.Portals.  The three (and
> counting) specializations of Portals are only
> referenced once to initialize them and let them
> register themselves into the system.  I could use
> renames to flatten out the majority of references
> (package SAM.Portals renames
> SAM.Entities.Things.Portals;), but you can't
> inherit from a rename, so the actual children are
> still deeply nested.  The long package names
> usually mean long file names.  This could become a
> portability problem.

Any compiler implementation that limits file names must still allow
long package names, and therefore provide a mechanism to map between
them. Therefore I don't see how this could become a portability
problem, any more than any file naming convention is a portability
problem. 

A system should be a simple as possible, but no simpler. Your package
names reflect the actual organization of the system; that's a benefit
:).

Sometimes, you can inherit from a type in a sibling package, rather
than in a child package. So perhaps SAM.Portals is the _right_ package
name in the first place?

-- 
-- Stephe