Remind me: it doesn't count as split packages if org.apache.brooklyn.entity is in one module and org.apache.brooklyn.entity.core is in another?
On balance, I'd prefer api module to be the odd one out: not to include .api in the package names. I'm a fan of simple interface names. IMO it reads nicer/simpler if you miss out api. I could be argued round though. --- This is a big *one-off decision*. I'm keen to get more people's opinions! Aled Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Aug 2015, at 17:32, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree. I am not sure what the best structure is, we can refine it while we > do the refactoring. For the api part though (which is my focus now) how do > you feel about org.apache.brooklyn.api? > > Cheers, > Hadrian > > >> On 08/06/2015 11:56 AM, Aled Sage wrote: >> Hi Hadrian, >> >> +1; makes sense to fix the split-package problem for the 0.8.0 release. >> >> These should be different PRs from the org.apache.brooklyn, so that they >> can be reviewed accordingly. >> >> I'll need to look again at the packages to give a definite opinion on >> naming. It's probably not as simple as org.apache.brooklyn.core.* in >> ./core: >> >> * There are utility classes in core named brooklyn.util.*, which >> should be compared with the brooklyn-util-common >> (main difference is that many utils in core have dependencies on >> other things in core, rather than being truly independent utils). >> * I'd like us to extract the core tasks framework >> (brooklyn.util.tasks) to its own module. >> >> --- >> We should also review what is public (i.e. what packages should be >> exported). For example, is core's brooklyn.internal.* definitely not >> used by any other projects? >> >> --- >> An alternative approach (definitely less appealing for me long term) >> would be to use OSGi fragments. I think something like that was done in >> the early days of OSGi'ifying jclouds, but don't recall the details off >> hand. There's an e-mail thread [1] and a blog post about it [2]. >> >> Aled >> >> [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jclouds-dev/FdsbfELc1o0 >> [2] http://iocanel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/osgification-good-bad-purist.html >> >> >>> On 06/08/2015 15:50, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I opened a new jira [1] for this. While doing my refactoring in ./api >>> I discovered quite a bunch of places where we have split packages >>> among api, utils, core, etc. >>> >>> I would recommend using something like: >>> >>> org.apache.brooklyn.api.* in ./api >>> org.apache.brooklyn.core.* in ./core >>> >>> and so forth. There are also a bunch of circular dependencies and >>> other smaller issues that we should correct. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> Hadrian >> >>
