> > As I wrote elsewhere, I propose that packages whose naming convention is: > org.apache.harmony.<modulename>.<something> > > represent internal APIs. All visible (public/protected) types in those > packages can be used by class library developers from any module, and > such developers can expect the API to be evolved in a compatible way. > > Module developers should not rely on the stability of anything starting: > org.apache.harmony.<modulename>.internal > > and are strongly discouraged from referencing visible types in such > packages since these are type internal module implementation code (and > when we turn on OSGi runtime checks the imports from other modules will > fail). > > > From other hand if we are talking about using these useful classes only > > inside Harmony then it's probably a good idea. But we need some procedure > > for moving a class to utilities package and we need to notify developers > > about class capabilities. > > Moving it to a 'utilities' package should be as simple as making it a > non-internal package name; and the notification is javadoc of those > non-internal types. > > > If people agree I'll write something for the website along these lines, > if not we can continue to debate it on the list. > > > Regards, > Tim >
Agree. Thank you. -- Anton Avtamonov, Intel Middleware Products Division
