Alexey Petrenko wrote: >>> But there are a lot of questions. For example what structure and >>> content should such library have. What classes used in Harmony modules we >>> should include and what classes we should not include. It's obvious that >>> library which simply consists of classes used by different developers in >>> different places will look like trash can but not like useful library. >> Agreed. I think the package naming convention goes a long way to >> structuring the code properly to make the usability interesting. > Yep. But I'm trying to say that creating tolls library is probably > different project with different goals.
I agree. We have enough work in the project as scoped already ;-) >> 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. > We also should remember that using classes from different modules > create additional dependencies between modules and this will decrease > modularity. And developers should document such dependencies anyway. > So probably we need do create "utilities" or "harmonyutilities" module > and put all useful for other modules classes into this package. No objection if it gets to that point, but let's not create it prematurely. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
