incompatibility.
Christian
Am 24.08.2011 14:13, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
ch...@die-schneider.net wrote:
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is
vs the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI
into an api package to make it clearer but that
will
probably create too much incompatibility.
Christian
Am 24.08.2011 14:13, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
ch...@die-schneider.net wrote:
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi
at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
ch...@die-schneider.net wrote:
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs
the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
1) API interfaces are called by the user to invoke functionality
wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is
vs the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
1) API interfaces are called by the user to invoke functionality
of the
framework. So API interfaces are implemented by the framework. SPI
-schneider.net wrote:
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is
vs the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
1) API interfaces are called by the user to invoke functionality
of the
framework. So API interfaces are implemented by the framework
Hi Willem,
as long as camel keeps compatible with most user code out there I see no
big problems in having the refactoring earlier.
Currently I already moved the management API to spi.management. As we
discussed it is not so well placed there. So I propose to do the change
like described
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
ch...@die-schneider.net wrote:
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
1) API interfaces are called by the user to invoke
it clearer but
that will probably create too much incompatibility.
Christian
Am 24.08.2011 14:13, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
ch...@die-schneider.net wrote:
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs the
org.apache.camel
but that will
probably create too much incompatibility.
Christian
Am 24.08.2011 14:13, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
ch...@die-schneider.net wrote:
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know
Claus Ibsen:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
ch...@die-schneider.netwrote:
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
1) API interfaces are called by the user
Am 24.08.2011 14:13, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
ch...@die-schneider.net wrote:
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
1) API
our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
1) API interfaces are called by the user to invoke functionality of the
framework. So API interfaces are implemented by the framework. SPI
interfaces are implemented
to
also
move
the whole camel api into an api package to make it clearer but that
will
probably create too much incompatibility.
Christian
Am 24.08.2011 14:13, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
ch...@die-schneider.net wrote:
I wonder what our scope
I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs the
org.apache.camel (API) package.
I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
1) API interfaces are called by the user to invoke functionality of the
framework. So API interfaces are implemented by the framework. SPI
14 matches
Mail list logo