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/
