On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> > wrote: > >> A couple of comments in no particular order... >> >> The "Core user model and uitility classes" description could be >> misinterpreted on a quick read. Maybe go with "Core protocol model..." or >> something like that? (Really all these APIs are for users, so it seems >> weird to mention it.) Also the utility classes mentioned here sound like >> they overlap with the util package. What is that actually referring to? >> > > Yes, good point. I'll go with protocol instead. > > If I could, I'd make util go away. It's for low-level things (not Proton > extensions, but language library extensions) that we wish to make public. > The best example we currently have is URL. > I should say also that I since there's just one utility of this kind so far, and since we will have extras/contrib/adapters for things such as BlockingConnection, I am content to drop proton.util and move URL to the top level. I would then consider a proton.logging group if there were enough things to put there. > Reference points: > > - > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-proton.git;a=tree;f=examples/python > - http://people.apache.org/~jross/proton-apidoc-draft-2/group__types.html > - > http://qpid.apache.org/releases/qpid-proton-0.8/protocol-engine/java/api/index.html > Gah, html frames got me. I meant to link to the list of proton-j types. http://qpid.apache.org/releases/qpid-proton-0.8/protocol-engine/java/api/org/apache/qpid/proton/amqp/package-summary.html
