looking good so far. How about this suggestion from before, Christian also 
seemed to agree with it 

org.apache.ol in go.commons.api.edm.provider ==> objects created dur in g CSDL 
document pars in g. "Edm" would have been right prefix for this, s in ce can 
not be used how about "Csdl"? They represent objects from this document. 

After this I will take another look at them, give you feedback. 

Ramesh.. 

----- Original Message -----

> Hi,

> I updated the OLINGO-564 feature branch (
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=olingo-odata4.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/OLINGO-564
> ).
> Now all classes within "org/apache/olingo/client/core/edm/xml” are package
> visible only (expect the “ClientEdmx” as entry point to xml parsing from
> edm).
> “ClientXMLMetadata” was moved from "org/apache/olingo/client/core/edm/xml” to
> "org/apache/olingo/client/core/edm” because it is the entry point to xml
> parsing from the outside of "org/apache/olingo/client/core/edm” (used in
> “ClientODataDeserializerImpl”).

> Feedback is welcome and I hope we can merge these changes into master before
> the “beta-03” release.

> Best regards,
> Michael

> > On 23 Apr 2015, at 16:08, Bolz, Michael < [email protected] > wrote:
> 

> > Hi together,
> 

> > based on your suggestions I created OLINGO-564 feature branch (
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=olingo-odata4.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/OLINGO-564
> > ).
> 
> > I started there with the removal of ‘provider’, adding more ‘package-info’
> > and renaming of client-core classes.
> 

> > > On 21 Apr 2015, at 17:25, Ramesh Reddy < [email protected] > wrote:
> > 
> 

> > > +1 on removing ".provider". +1 on package private.
> > 
> 

> > The “package private” modification is not that easy, because some classes
> > (in
> > org/apache/olingo/client/core/edm/xml/* <->
> > org/apache/olingo/client/core/edm/xml/annotations) are dependent on each
> > other.
> 
> > Actual I check for a solution with probably removal of “annotations”
> > package.
> 
> > As soon I have an idea I will inform you.
> 

> > Best regards,
> 
> > Michael
> 

Reply via email to