Salut mon ami! not only I would move the converters package to a 'TLP' org.apache.onami.converters module, I would even split converters in different small submodules, so users bring just the converters they need.
Let's say someone just needs a DateConverter... which is the sense of including all the converters in the application? Something suggests me we should take more care about modularization... does it make sense? TIA, all the best! -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Eric Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for validation > with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2]. > > So it confirms convertion deserves a dedicated module. > > Thx, Eric > > [1] https://github.com/echarles/sitebricks/tree/validation > [2] https://github.com/dhanji/sitebricks/tree/master/sitebricks-converter > > > > On 02/02/2013 13:27, Eric Charles wrote: >> >> Hi Simo, >> >> Do you mean moving to a toplevel onami module >> (org.apache.onami.converters)? >> >> Just asking to be sure, but it makes sense to me as any other module >> potentially need convertion. >> >> Thx, Eric >> >> >> On 02/02/2013 12:13, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>> >>> Hi all guys, >>> >>> I wonder if it would make sense extracting the converters from >>> [configuration] in separated modules - my objective is defining all >>> that modules in a fine granularization in order that users just >>> include in their application what they really need, and not everything >>> by default. >>> >>> So I'd move all converters in a separated branch with sub-module. >>> >>> Do you have any observation on that? >>> TIA and have a nice WE, >>> -Simo >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >
