Since we are using PureMVC we recently had a heated discussion over whether to name the value object with a VO on the end. A kind of Flex form of Hungarian notation. One of the issues is names clashes, despite having different package names dividing up the namespaces so that each object name is different the IDE usually just displays them in the dot completion drop down as just the object name. Which can cause confusion.

I would prefer not to have to name everything with some form of end descriptor such as Command, Mediator, or Proxy but PureMVC breaks the functionality up so much that the naming ends up becoming repetitive. Also, because of the heavy use of patterns the object names tend to be meaningless unless the command, mediator or proxy is added onto the object name.

For instance a Command object is one with an execute() method that is requester agnostic and the object asking for that operation being performed doesn't know or care what the command object is doing, or going to do.

Value objects are slightly different. In the PureMVC system they are the closest thing we have to classical OOP objects. They describe a 'something' with private variables and getter and setters. So if any component in the PureMVC system should be named with a hard descriptor, it is the value objects.

A counter argument is that adding VO to the end of an object name aids readability. I consider most of this kind of readability as code litter. The reason we don't use Hungarian anymore is that it was a big mess. The convention of underscoring private variables is unnecessary in languages that have the private modifier to variables and functions. Underscoring their variables names is meaningless. So it is with package namespaces and object names.

The best argument for making the value objects carry the VO is that the IDEs tend to lump everything together in the dot completion drop downs. In my opinion this isn't a good enough argument to demand the addition of the VO identifier.

Software teams tend to be democratic to an extent and in this issue the team is slightly split. Programmers tend to treat their writing of code with care and make sure the formatting is all clean, evenly spaced and to their aesthetic liking. So something as simple as adding VO to an object descriptor can evoke some heated discussion and heels being dug in. Such is the fun of software development in teams.

More Reading on Puremvc

• PureMVC
• Software Engineering
• Object Naming Conventions
• PureMVC
• PureMVC and Notifications
• Value Objects in PureMVC and Object Naming Conventions