I think this kind of report is excellent, and I think many of us recall that some classes (e.g. JoinManager) were similarly 'promoted' from com.sun.jini to net.jini in the early days. Since 'renaming' is partly incompatible, it is a good opportunity to look over these kind of changes at the same time.
Cheers Niclas On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Christopher Dolan <[email protected]> wrote: > It turns out that I overstated my case, so I withdraw my negative vote. I > wrote my previous email before researching how extensively my code actually > uses the com.sun.jini.* classes. It's not nearly as bad as I thought -- I > had misrecollected that some of the AbstractEntry subclasses were in com.sun > -- and some of it is just bad code in my project. Anecdotally, here are the > classes my project currently uses (not including my unit tests, which dig > deeper): > > import com.sun.jini.config.Config; > import com.sun.jini.config.ConfigUtil; > import com.sun.jini.landlord.Landlord; > import com.sun.jini.landlord.LandlordLease; > import com.sun.jini.landlord.LeaseFactory; > import com.sun.jini.loader.pref.internal.PreferredResources; > import com.sun.jini.logging.Levels; > import com.sun.jini.thread.TaskManager.Task; > import com.sun.jini.thread.TaskManager; > > I've been trying to refactor many of those out (like TaskManager), but some > of them are hard to avoid, especially the landlord classes and Levels. > PreferredResources, for example, is in my custom PreferredClassLoader > implementation. > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:54 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Java package names > > This is troubling news. My proposed refactoring of TaskManager to enable > performance tuning depends on the assumption that, as a com.sun.* class, > it is only used within the project. > > In general, we will be severely limited in our ability to progress if we > have to treat all public com.sun.* interfaces as external interfaces. > > Patricia > > > Christopher Dolan wrote: >> I vote against such an incompatible change. There are a lot of >> classes under there, for example com.sun.jini.thread.TaskManager, >> that are utility code employed by downstream developers. I think all >> new code should go elsewhere if possible, but changing the existing >> com.sun.jini packages would be hard on existing users. >> >> Chris >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Benson Margulies >> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:51 >> AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Java package names >> >> River imported packages of code from the original Sun grant under the >> name 'com.sun.whatever'. >> >> How important is it to change that? > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
