Totally agreed here...
/Janne
On 1 Jan 2009, at 14:36, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
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
