i agree with mark. regards, gerhard
2011/12/21 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > As I see it we have 3 different options: > > 1.) .api.* + .impl.* because it's more easy to 'grab' any api package in > e.g. an Arquillian test. If we don't have the modulename.api package name, > then we cannot do something like this in Arquillian: > Shrinkwrap.createArchive(JavaArchive.class).addPackages(true, > "...modulename.api"); > > Without the explicit .api package name we would not be able to add just > the api module without also adding all the impl stuff as well. (This is > needed if we e.g. like to test single features of the impl module). > > > The very same will hit us with the maven-shade-plugin where we would not > be able to explicitely shade all classes of the api modules. > > > > thus a +1 for this. > > > 2.) noting + '.internal' > > possible, but with the downsides as noted above. > -0.5 thus. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <anto...@sabot-durand.net> > > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:55 AM > > Subject: Re: basic decisions - package and class naming > > > > Social API: > > org.apache.deltaspike.social.* +1 > > > > the implementation > > org.apache.deltaspike.social.impl.* +0 (we don't have this in Seam and > have > > the distinction in module name, but it's not a big deal for me) > > > > @SPI => +0 I'm not sure to use it but why not. > > > > > > Antoine SABOT-DURAND > > > > Le 15 déc. 2011 à 18:43, Matthias Wessendorf a écrit : > > > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > wrote: > >>> Well, we are now hitting the wall - so we need a resolution asap. > >>> > >>> For the core module we would have > >>> > >>> for core-api: > >>> > >>> org.apache.deltaspike.core. ....? > >>> > >>> for core-impl: > >>> > >>> org.apache.deltaspike.core.impl. ....? > >> > >> > >> yes! > >> And/or > >> > >> JPA API: > >> org.apache.deltaspike.jpa.* > >> > >> the implementation > >> org.apache.deltaspike.jpa.impl.* > >> > >> @SPI => fine for me! > >> > >> But please NO 'api' inside of the pkg names; (impl is a must, IMO > >> (fine in naming it 'internal', but I guess impl is more > > 'standard') > >> > >> -M > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> The problem is that by omitting the .api. package, we don't have > > any good handle to include/exclude all the classes from core.api, > jsf.api, etc > > in the maven-shade-plugin or any other include/exclude mechanism. That > could > > hurt a bit. > >>> > >>> Matze, you have not been fond of the api package, what do you suggest > > as an alternative option? > >>> > >>> LieGrue, > >>> strub >
