On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 19:53 +0100, Roland Weber wrote: > Hi folks, > > this is a list of our implementation packages that have a > corresponding API package: > > org.apache.http.impl > org.apache.http.impl.entity * > org.apache.http.impl.io * > org.apache.http.nio.impl > org.apache.http.async.impl > org.apache.http.client.impl > org.apache.http.conn.impl > org.apache.http.cookie.impl > > Does anyone else feel we're sending a mixed message? (*) > The original idea may have been that each component gets > it's own impl root package. But since then, we've started > to split components into modules and merge some components > into one, and we may be spinning off modules or components > in the future. > I believe we should have a common naming pattern for those > impl packages that map to an API package. Putting the > .impl. after the API package name allows for more natural > navigation. On the other hand, HttpCore is already used by > some, so we might break less code if we always put the > .impl directly after the .http. I don't have a problem with > subpackages that don't map to an API package, such as > .nio.impl.codecs or .conn.impl.accm (for Advanced Client > Connection Manager, if there should be one in the future). > > What do you think? If we're going to straighten this out, > it should be with the next core alpha. >
I am not sure it is worth the trouble, given the fact this will affect every single user of HttpCore out there. I wish we had done it differently but do not feel strongly enough about it to go through much trouble in order to fix it. Oleg > cheers, > Roland > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
