Re: [Discussion] Rest package names
On 21.01.2013 10:29, Andrei Shakirin wrote: Hi, I would like to make a proposal regarding some Rest package names: 1. Core services implementations: org.apache.syncope.core.services (actually org.apache.syncope.core.services.impl). Impl ending doesn't bring additional information and doesn't recommended by java best practices. rest is deliberately not in package name, because implementation is basically independent from Rest and can be potentially reused for other remote interfaces. Impl is a default name in OSGi to mark the package as private. So I think it is not against best practices. In this special case I agree though as the service api is defined in org.apache.syncope.services. So the core part in org.apache.syncope.core.services is already enough to separate those two packages. 2. Resource comparators and server exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.core.rest.utils (actually org.apache.syncope.core.rest). It makes purpose of these classes more clear. Generally I don't like util packages. I would put these helpers into the same package as the service impls as they are only referenced from there. 3. Client exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.client.rest.utils (unfortunately cannot be combined with server mapper, because server exception mapper have a lot of dependencies of core specific exceptions). Why not client.rest? If we keep the client proxy classes in some form we could also put it there. Christian
RE: [Discussion] Rest package names
Hi Christian, 2. Resource comparators and server exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.core.rest.utils (actually org.apache.syncope.core.rest). It makes purpose of these classes more clear. Generally I don't like util packages. I would put these helpers into the same package as the service impls as they are only referenced from there. They are referenced not from service package, but from spring service configuration. Theoretically they can be used with some different service implementations. Perhaps helpers sounds better as utils? 3. Client exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.client.rest.utils (unfortunately cannot be combined with server mapper, because server exception mapper have a lot of dependencies of core specific exceptions). Why not client.rest? If we keep the client proxy classes in some form we could also put it there. I would like to keep it symmetric with core, otherwise it will be confusing. Cheers, Andrei. -Original Message- From: Christian Schneider [mailto:cschneider...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christian Schneider Sent: Montag, 21. Januar 2013 11:00 To: dev@syncope.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discussion] Rest package names On 21.01.2013 10:29, Andrei Shakirin wrote: Hi, I would like to make a proposal regarding some Rest package names: 1. Core services implementations: org.apache.syncope.core.services (actually org.apache.syncope.core.services.impl). Impl ending doesn't bring additional information and doesn't recommended by java best practices. rest is deliberately not in package name, because implementation is basically independent from Rest and can be potentially reused for other remote interfaces. Impl is a default name in OSGi to mark the package as private. So I think it is not against best practices. In this special case I agree though as the service api is defined in org.apache.syncope.services. So the core part in org.apache.syncope.core.services is already enough to separate those two packages. 2. Resource comparators and server exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.core.rest.utils (actually org.apache.syncope.core.rest). It makes purpose of these classes more clear. Generally I don't like util packages. I would put these helpers into the same package as the service impls as they are only referenced from there. 3. Client exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.client.rest.utils (unfortunately cannot be combined with server mapper, because server exception mapper have a lot of dependencies of core specific exceptions). Why not client.rest? If we keep the client proxy classes in some form we could also put it there. Christian
RE: [Discussion] Rest package names
The classes are referenced from the spring config but they belong to the impl classes so why introduce a new package? Basically we can leave exception mapper and resource comparator in core.services, there is one thing that make me unsure: Exception mapper and resource comparator depend from CXF, service implementations basically not. Does it make sense to mix these classes in one package? Regards, Andrei. -Original Message- From: Christian Schneider [mailto:cschneider...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christian Schneider Sent: Montag, 21. Januar 2013 11:25 To: dev@syncope.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discussion] Rest package names On 21.01.2013 11:14, Andrei Shakirin wrote: Hi Christian, 2. Resource comparators and server exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.core.rest.utils (actually org.apache.syncope.core.rest). It makes purpose of these classes more clear. Generally I don't like util packages. I would put these helpers into the same package as the service impls as they are only referenced from there. They are referenced not from service package, but from spring service configuration. Theoretically they can be used with some different service implementations. Perhaps helpers sounds better as utils? The classes are referenced from the spring config but they belong to the impl classes so why introduce a new package? 3. Client exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.client.rest.utils (unfortunately cannot be combined with server mapper, because server exception mapper have a lot of dependencies of core specific exceptions). Why not client.rest? If we keep the client proxy classes in some form we could also put it there. I would like to keep it symmetric with core, otherwise it will be confusing. Makes sense to make it similar to core. That is why I propose to also avoid the util if we avoid it in core. Of course if we choose util in core then it makes sense to do the same on the client side. Christian
