+1 on #2 On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Jeanne Waldman <jeanne.wald...@oracle.com> wrote: > I created a JIRA issue for this. > I initially planned to change the package from > org.apache.myfaces.trinidadinternal.share.io.InputStreamProvider to > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.share.io.InputStreamProvider > > Currently there is no "share.io" package in the API. There is no 'io' > package either. > > I can: > 1. create an io package > 2. create a share.io package to mimic the impl directory structure, though I > don't know why it is 'share'. > > thoughts? I'm leaning towards #2 to keep them in parallel. > > Jeanne > > Catalin Kormos wrote, On 3/3/2010 1:50 AM PT: > > +1 > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> Sent from my iPod. >> >> On 03.03.2010, at 01:41, Jeanne Waldman <jeanne.wald...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi there, >>> I want to make sure it is ok for people if I move >>> org.apache.myfaces.trinidadinternal.share.io.InputStreamProvider to the >>> trinidad package, making InputStreamProvider a public api. It should be very >>> easy to do, since this interface does not use any other internal apis. >>> >>> We have a customer that wants to implement this interface so that they >>> can use their own InputStreamProvider to find the skinning css files. This >>> is a part of the TRINIDAD-1729 JIRA issue that I'm working on - >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1729 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeanne > > > > -- > ------------ > Codebeat > www.codebeat.ro >
-- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
