+1 I'm fine with this. Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 21, 2011, at 4:05, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>
