On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:30:33 -0400, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:57:15 -0400, Ted Husted wrote: > > ... that we rename the package called "impl" as "faces". > > As to the impl package: > > I think what really bothers me here is that the classes implemented here are not > part of the Shale API. As soon as I saw ImplViewHandler, I starting looking around > for a Shale ViewHandler interface. :) Of course, it is not a Shale interface, but a > Faces interface. So far, all of the members here extend Faces interfaces or classes. > > To me, "impl" says we're implementing the interfaces for the Shale layer (rather > than the Faces layer). > > Naming this package "faces" clarifies that it contains classes that are dependant on > the lower-level Faces API, as opposed to the higher-level Shale API. > > What I would suggest is that we call the package "faces", and the member classes: > > * "ShaleApplicationFilter" > * "ShaleConstants" > * "ShalePhaseListener" > * "ShaleViewHandler" > > I'm thinking that in an import statement > > * org.apache.shale.ViewController > * org.apache.shale.faces.ShaleApplicationFilter > > would clearly say who's riding whom. >
Yah, I can buy that argument. Feel free to refactor. By the way, I'm about 50% done with making mailreader work just on top of ViewController (i'll refactor my imports as needed when you make those changes). That will give us a starting point for seeing what applications built on this thing could look like - even without all the dialog and application level stuff. Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
