On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hi folks! > > Back to work after being sick for a week. I think it's time to start > hacking on DeltaSpike! > > But before we do so, I'd like to clarify a few basic things > > a.) package names > > I'd suggest > > > org.apache.deltaspike.core.* > > for our core stuff > > > org.apache.deltaspike.jpa.* > > for JPA > +1 for the org.apache.deltaspike package prefix, followed by the module name. > > > > org.apache.deltaspike.jsf.jsf12.* > > for JSF-1.2 > > > org.apache.deltaspike.jsf.jsf20.* > > for JSF-2.0, etc > > -1 for the separation of JSF packages, I think this may cause problems longer term, especially when we get JSF3, JSF4 etc. The way I would handle this is to have a separate module for each JSF version, but re-use the org.apache.deltaspike.jsf package name. > > > In general most of our project parts will contain the following 3 sub- > parts > > *) api - the parts meant to be imported in customer projects with Maven > <scope>compile > > *) impl - does the actual work, not intended to be used in customer > projects diretly. Thus Maven <scope>runtime only. > > *) spi - parts meant to be used for extending the default functionality. > Up for discussion, not sure if we really need it! This might also be done > directly in impl, users can still > > > Matze mentioned that he doesn't like to have 'api' in the package name. > What do you like to use instead to distinguish between those? Having an own > package name probably makes it easier to use the maven-shade-plugin. Any > opinions? > I would prefer not to have 'api' or 'impl' in the package name either. We never had them in any of the Seam modules that I'm aware of, and there was no problem with this. > > > Are there any Class naming conventions/rules you like to introduce? Pros, > cons? > I think standard Java naming conventions should be fine. > > > LieGrue, > strub > >
