we talked with aslak about it. since it would be possible with filters: +0 (for both)
regards, gerhard 2011/12/21 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > 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 >> > >
