> True, but the way accessibility modifiers work if you want to > encapsulate "package" level functionality you need them to be in > different assemblies (internal modifier). Accessibility and > namespace are totally independent within an assembly, right?
That is correct. I would argue that you could design around accessibility limitations within a single assembly. While a faithful port is the goal, I think we want a final product that is natural in C#. Multiple assemblies for a product this straightforward would be unusual. > If we were going to map java package visibility design to the port, > we'd need separate assemblies. Perhaps the package/assembly > visibility doesn't matter that much since the code base is relatively > small. Agreed. Again, I believe we can design around any limitations imposed by the language where increased accessibility may be a concern. > Facilitating developer understanding of the code base via > logical organization is as important to me as easy deployment. Maybe > this is achieved by mapping Java packages to C# namespaces in the same > assembly arranged via folders. I like the folder approach for organizing the codebase. > Keeping alignment with the Java package structure (at least for > namespace) should aid in the port, and help with on going maintenance > and for those brave souls jumping from one to the other. I would think anyone familiar with the Java CAS client codebase would immediately recognize that Jasig.CasClient.Validation corresponded to org.jasig.cas.client.validation. The former is a naming convention that is much more natural in C#. M -- You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
