Hi Christian, > > 2. Resource comparators and server exception mapper: > org.apache.syncope.core.rest.utils (actually org.apache.syncope.core.rest). > It makes purpose of these classes more clear. > Generally I don't like util packages. I would put these helpers into the same > package as the service impls as they are only referenced from there.
They are referenced not from service package, but from spring service configuration. Theoretically they can be used with some different service implementations. Perhaps "helpers" sounds better as "utils"? > > > > 3. Client exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.client.rest.utils > (unfortunately cannot be combined with server mapper, because server > exception mapper have a lot of dependencies of core specific exceptions). > Why not client.rest? If we keep the client proxy classes in some form we > could also put it there. > I would like to keep it symmetric with core, otherwise it will be confusing. Cheers, Andrei. > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Schneider [mailto:cschneider...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Christian Schneider > Sent: Montag, 21. Januar 2013 11:00 > To: dev@syncope.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Discussion] Rest package names > > On 21.01.2013 10:29, Andrei Shakirin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to make a proposal regarding some Rest package names: > > > > 1. Core services implementations: org.apache.syncope.core.services > (actually org.apache.syncope.core.services.impl). "Impl" ending doesn't > bring additional information and doesn't recommended by java best > practices. "rest" is deliberately not in package name, because > implementation is basically independent from Rest and can be potentially > reused for other remote interfaces. > Impl is a default name in OSGi to mark the package as private. So I think it > is > not against best practices. > > In this special case I agree though as the service api is defined in > org.apache.syncope.services. So the core part in > org.apache.syncope.core.services is already enough to separate those two > packages. > > > > > 2. Resource comparators and server exception mapper: > org.apache.syncope.core.rest.utils (actually org.apache.syncope.core.rest). > It makes purpose of these classes more clear. > Generally I don't like util packages. I would put these helpers into the same > package as the service impls as they are only referenced from there. > > > > 3. Client exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.client.rest.utils > (unfortunately cannot be combined with server mapper, because server > exception mapper have a lot of dependencies of core specific exceptions). > Why not client.rest? If we keep the client proxy classes in some form we > could also put it there. > > > Christian
