Basic code styling question

[imacatlolol]

I have a simple question that honestly might generic enough for SO, but I think it fits.

Would it be a bad idea to make my "ModItems", "ModBlocks", etc. classes just be inner-classes of my main mod class? (I.e. Mod$Items, Mod$Blocks)

An alternative would be to rename the classes "(Mod ID)Items", "(Mod ID)Blocks" etc. but it feels just as sloppy, especially for longer mod ids.

Using the word "Mod" is just asking for class name collisions, and I'm not a fan of having to use fully qualified classpaths in my code. (Edit: Object holders kind of fix this issue, but I think it's still worth talking about)

Using inner-classes feels logical, as my mods items are a direct aspect of my mod, therefore it seems like it's not too far fetched to use inner classes for this. But, I'm not confident.

 

It feels like a pretty basic Java styling principal that I'm just ignorant of, so I'd like to get some input from people who are more experienced than me.

Edited February 17, 2020 by imacatlolol

[Draco18s]

I did

https://github.com/Draco18s/ReasonableRealism/blob/1.14.4/src/main/java/com/draco18s/harderores/HarderOres.java#L244

[imacatlolol]

16 minutes ago, Draco18s said:

I did

https://github.com/Draco18s/ReasonableRealism/blob/1.14.4/src/main/java/com/draco18s/harderores/HarderOres.java#L244

Nice, yeah that's exactly what I was thinking.

 

I can see that having hundreds of items might cause a bit of trouble, and my IDE doesn't always play nicely with inner-classes when I try searching for them or auto-completing, but aside from that I still think it's a worthwhile idea.

[OnlyJoe]

That does look quite tidy. Can't think of any reason not to do that.

 

The only thing to be aware of is that most of the registry methods rely heavily on java reflection, so you just have to avoid having totally isolated classes, or the class loader won't load them.  Eg, a class that doesn't have some import chain back to your main class. That is why you have to declare your objects somewhere else, and couldn't just put a sort of "@RegisterObject" on your class definition. 

[Draco18s]

3 hours ago, OnlyJoe said:

That does look quite tidy. Can't think of any reason not to do that.

 

The only thing to be aware of is that most of the registry methods rely heavily on java reflection, so you just have to avoid having totally isolated classes, or the class loader won't load them.  Eg, a class that doesn't have some import chain back to your main class. That is why you have to declare your objects somewhere else, and couldn't just put a sort of "@RegisterObject" on your class definition. 

That's still true of a class in its own file.