Ralph Goers wrote: > Why? It can create some interesting problems if the package for the > impl is different than the API as you sometimes want to use package > scope in the API and you won't be able to. Frankly, creating an > interface named Something and an impl named SomethingImpl should > suffice. I can't speak for Eclipse, but with IntelliJ finding the class > is dirt simple so that shouldn't ever be a consideration. > Hmm, I'm not sure if I want to use package scope for public api :) Now, my main reason for this is OSGi where I can simply hide classes based on packages. Split packages, containing both api and impl - or public and private classes - is a pain there.
And speaking of ides, I would rather only import the api library to be sure to not use private classes. In the case of also importing the implementation, the different package names give at least a hint. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
