Poor Naming Conventions

[See Furst]

Ok.. So I got two classes...and they got the same (ok similar) name.

com.thing.mine.package.Item
com.otherthing.mine.package.Item

I need both. Do I really have to explicitly call both?

new com.otherthing.mine.packageB.Item stupidlyNamedClassInstance = new com.otherthing.mine.packageB.Item();
new com.thing.mine.packageA.Item whyDidWeUseSuchStupidNames = new com.thing.mine.packageA.Item();

Is there like a typedef call like in C++ that can help with this?

like:

typedef com.thing.mine.package.Item Thing1;
typedef com.otherthing.mine.package.Item Thing2;

Thing1 niceThing = new Thing1();
Thing2  anotherNiceThing = new Thing2();

[Rob Spoor]

You can import one; that already decreases your problem by half.

You cannot typedef a class, but perhaps it's possible to subclass it. It's not really good design to create a class just to rename another though.

[See Furst]

Rob Spoor wrote:You can import one; that already decreases your problem by half.

And how would I import the other? I guess subclass it.. or abstract it?

Of course the obvious answer is use better names but.. unfortunately .. I'm stuck..

I'm taking the subclass route, now that you mention it. It's.. sloppy.. I know.. but... Java could use a typedef kind of keyword. It screams for it. Especially with all these frameworks using common name like "Node", "Item", "Session" jcr is completely built like that.. and that's a Java spec...

Didn't look around too much did they..