On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org>wrote:
> @package names: > +1 > @shane: currently we don't have issues with it (see what we are doing in > codi with the shade plugin) > > to skip 'api' as package would mean that it >might< be harder to use our > bundles (e.g. extval doesn't have api/impl packages and users started to > use impl classes, utils,... >at least< until we marked them as internal). > +/- 0 > Actually I like the idea of using internal to designate implementation classes. That would make it much more intuitive for the end user. > > @other rules: > no names which start with an underscore > Do people actually do this? :) > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2011/12/12 Shane Bryzak <sbry...@gmail.com> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > >
