On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 1/29/11 10:38 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: > >> >> [X] - (c) >>> interface = AddRequest >>> simple API exposed implementation = AddRequest*Impl* >>> not so simple internal use implementation = >>> AddRequest*Decoder* >>> We're applying option 'C' right now. I'm torn but think A might suite us >>> better for the long term, and for any situation. You also know what's an >>> interface and what's not although the IDE automatically shows you this >>> stuff >>> on the package/class browser. >>> >> This is my opinion for a low-level API, which 1:1 maps LDAP >> terminology to the Java API. I think we should additional have a >> simplified API where the user don't need to deal with request and >> response objects at all. >> >> BTW: We have this discussion again and again ;-) We really need to >> decide a consistent naming. >> > > I think we already discussed it more than once, and we all agreed on this > convention. > > I'm not sure we want to rehash this again every 2 years :/ > > When there's a push to release a 1.0 of an API, we need to make the API consistent. I can do this myself but the community way is to have a discussion. If you do not want to discuss this feel free not to participate, or say you don't care. -- Alex Karasulu My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/ Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu
