@danroundhill: I apologize for not asking you about this before I submitted r958, but I wanted to get your thoughts on moving activities (and related UI code) under a ‘ui’ package. My thinking was to put general purpose and base classes directly in the ui package, and then have sub packages under there for the main logical parts of the app… accounts, posts, prefs, reader, etc. r958 and r959 demonstrate the beginning of that.
I know that a lot of these activities have more than just UI code in them, but that’s actually kind of the point. I’d like to eventually pull a lot of that network and business logic out of the activities so that it is more reusable (similar to what was very briefly started in #363).
Since this involves moving a lot of code around, I wanted to double check with you before heading down this road.

Dan 8:58 am on March 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No worries, I reviewed the commit and it all looks good. I tried to get better organization of the code going in 2.0 by adding the util and model packages, but even after that there’s still quite a bit left in the root.
I also feel like we should rename some of the Classes so that you can better understand what it does by reading just the name. For example, we could put the type after the name so ‘Posts’ would become ‘PostsActivity’.
Will Norris 9:00 am on March 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
yep, completely agree about adding “Activity” suffix to class name where appropriate. I’ve done that on the new classes I created, and planned to do the same when I migrate others over to the new package.
Dan 10:17 am on March 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
And probably the fragments should be renamed to match up as well, e.g. ‘PostsListFragment’
Eric 11:39 am on March 12, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
+1 to this. I remember some of the comment class naming was a bit confusing.