Is the mix between UPPERCASE and CamelCase naming deliberate or accidental?

[keilw]

When syncing the latest codebase from upstream I noticed e.g. one class de.adorsys.aspsp.xs2a.service.AISConsentService vs. de.adorsys.aspsp.xs2a.service.consent.ais.AisConsentService.

I know because I help Oracle and others in the JCP and more recently Eclipse/Jakarta EE, that acronyms are not always easy to decide, but especially Oracle tends to prefer CamelCase for most acronyms like HTTP. Take https://docs.oracle.com/javase/10/docs/api/javax/xml/ws/http/HTTPBinding.html (as of Java 1.6) vs. https://docs.oracle.com/javase/10/docs/api/javax/xml/ws/spi/http/HttpHandler.html (which came with Java 7 about a year after the Oracle acquisition of Sun) as an example.

Not sure if there's a common system and convention for different developers how to treat acronyms like AIS, PIS, ASPSP, TPP, etc.? In another case there's also a de.adorsys.aspsp.xs2a.component.JsonConverter rather than a JSONConverter, so it would be great to be consistent within the solution.

[jfractalus]

We use different naming because otherwise, we will face ConflictingBeanDefinitionException as both beans are located in the same spring context. In the nearest future we are going to use different names for packages, so beans naming problem will be solved. About naming of JsonConverter - yes, sure, we will change it in the next sprint. Thanks for your advice

[keilw]

Thanks for explaining the constraints by Spring Bean naming. And no, I did not suggest renaming JsonConverter, it sounds OK also matching how the JSON-P JSR and subsequent Jakarta EE standard call the classes like JsonObject, etc.

[jfractalus]

Yes, I see. Thanks