Hi folks, regarding interface package name - why not "org.apache.jspwiki.api"
+) every developer on this planet would expect to find interface and simple domain object there +) using a seperate package would allow to extract the API from the rest of the implementation project if needed (and is a good test if the API is self-contained) Cheers, Siegfried Goeschl Janne Jalkanen wrote: >> Janne's reply regarding timing of the rename is worth respecting. I >> would like to see more communication to the group regarding the >> expected conclusion of the JCR work. I would not like to see JCR >> delay the project for more than a couple of months. One reason for a >> community of folks working on the project. So while there's no need >> to rush things that are coming up quickly, we should try to avoid >> losing momentum. > > *shrug* > > I can commit the JCR work to trunk right away. > > It just doesn't work, that's all. > >> Refactoring interfaces from classes needs a corresponding class >> factory. Has this been thought through? There are good reasons for >> interfaces with factories, primarily driven by needing multiple >> independent implementations. But classes with exernally-written >> subclasses are also a good approach if most subclasses just need to >> change a small bit of behavior. > > Correct, and we use that pattern with filters, for example. > >> Splitting the stable interfaces apart from the implementation doesn't >> necessarily need a new package name. Either org.apache.jspwiki or >> org.apache.jspwiki.api could be used. > > And the question is which one... > > /Janne > >
