Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
The o.a.t.sca.scope contains the interfaces/classes which used to be
SPIs while the o.a.t.sca.core.scope contains implementation classes.
As we approach release 1.0, I'd like to suggest again that we pick
a consistent naming convention for SPIs and implementation classes.
We should bear in mind that SPIs are divided into two types:
1. Interfaces intended to be implemented by extensions. Adding
methods to these is a breaking change for extensions and should
be avoided if possible.
2. Interfaces intended to be called by extensions. Removing
methods from these is a breaking change for extensions and should
be avoided if possible.
Ideally I'd like to see a clear naming convention that distinguishes
implementations / type 1 SPIs / type 2 SPIs.
Would others like to see this? If so, I'll make a concrete proposal.
Simon
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Difference between o.a.t.sca.scope and o.a.t.sca.core.scope
Module core contains an o.a.t.sca.scope package.
I'm trying to fix package names to be consistent with the module names
so o.a.t.sca.scope should be renamed to o.a.t.sca.core.scope, but
there's already another o.a.t.sca.core.scope in module core!
What is the difference between these two packages?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
