On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > 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).
Ok, I don't get the _why_; Do you mind to explain it to me (I know nothing about Arquillian and the shade plugin:-)) -M > > > 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 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
