On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Christian Schneider
<ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> We could do something like that but the problem is the scope and dependency
> rules for this new package.
> Main needs access to all inner details of camel. So you only would like to
> put classes in that package that also need such details. On the other hand
> this package should
> be accessed by nothing else as it would easily create tangles over most of
> camel.
>

I guess main is a corner case and moving it to .main could make sense
in that case.


> For example the ServiceSupport class should not go in the same package as
> Main as ServiceSupport will be needed by many other classes.
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 19.08.2011 16:43, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>>
>> I am not sure moving Main to a main package is a good idea.
>> As you would lock yourself into only having the Main class there.
>>
>> What about adding a org.apache.camel.support package.
>>
>> And then have more commonly used Camel classes by end users in there.
>> Such as the Main class.
>> But by naming it support we give us legroom to put in other useful
>> classes.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
>



-- 
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cib...@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/

Reply via email to