On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> >>> we have these packages in user-api: >>> o.a.j.vut >>> o.a.j.api.user >>> o.a.j.services >>> >>> then we have these in user-library: >>> o.a.j.core >>> o.a.j.management >>> o.a.j.security >>> o.a.j.services >>> o.a.j.userrepository >>> o.a.j.util >>> o.a.j.vut >>> o.a.j (for JamesMBean) >> >> i think that this is too many >> >> i would prefer all api's to be packaged under o.a.j.api.**.* so that >> interfaces used internally from those intended to allow external >> extension and so on > > What about > > moving this in the user-api module: > - from user-api/o.a.j.services/Users*|James* to user-api/o.a.j.api.user > - from user-api/o.a.j.services/Virtual* to user-api/o.a.j.api.vut > - from user-api/o.a.j.vut to user-api/o.a.j.api.vut > > the vut and user packages do not need to be nested because they do not have > dependencies (they could even be 2 separate modules, but this is a matter of > style once the packages are correct and self contained). sounds good to me > move this classes from user-library to user-api in the > o.a.j.api.vut.management package: > o.a.j.management.VirtualUserTableManagementException > o.a.j.vut.InvalidMappingException > o.a.j.services.VirtualUserTableManagementService > move this classes from user-library to user-api in the > o.a.j.api.user.management package: > o.a.j.management.UserManagementException > o.a.j.management.UserManagementMBean > (they simply expose "mutable" stuff for the User / VUTs) i've been wondering about the coupling around remote manager and the management interfaces for a while now. in some ways, i think that management interfaces should be private so that implementations can vary but i didn't find including them in higher layer worked for me either. so let's try out this proposal. > move o.a.j.services.JamesUser from library to user-api/o.a.j.api.user > package. > > reorganize classe in user-library according to the repackaging of the api: > they deserve a similar tree (user | vut | vut.management | user.management). > > This should make the library module much more compact in term of packages. i dislike JamesUser and prefer smaller APIs but let's give this a go - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
