The plan sounds good as I'd like to get a look at [p] by itself before the package re-jiggering. My current thought is that separate namespaces are often overused...
Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 13:27 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: [primitives] Package layout strategy > > I've been thinking about how the new project should structure its > packages. > > [primitives] will (I hope) be looking at Map implementations in addition > to > the List ones currently existing. I would like to restructure the packages > into an interface based scheme. > primitives.collection > primitives.list > primitives.map > primitives.iterator > Each package would contain the interface, implementation, wrapper and > adaptor. > > I believe this will give [primitives] the room it needs to grow, and allow > users a quick grasp of the features available. (If you want to see what > this > turns out like see the sandbox primitives) > > However, this is a change from the current layout of the code held in > [collections]. So.... I propose that > - the primitive classes in [collections] are imported directly into > [primitives] without changing the package name > - we arrange a snapshot build of [primitives] using this package structure > - we reorganize the packages into the new layout > - we head towards a release > > How does this sound??? > > Stephen > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
