On 4/18/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/18/06, John Fallows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 4/18/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Already done the package renaming? > > > If not, what about having one more additional namespace level: > > > org.apache.myfaces.adf.api > > > org.apache.myfaces.adf.internal (or impl? - which sounds more common > to > > > me) > > > org.apache.myfaces.adf.build > > > org.apache.myfaces.adf.demo > > > > > > I think this would separate things even more clearly: All ADF stuff in > > one > > > "master" package. > > > > > > Understood. However, the downside of this is that the "internal" / > > "impl" > > subpackage would show up during IDE code completion. Branching the > > package > > namespace early between API and impl helps to address this issue. > > > Not sure I understood. > When I add org.apache.myfaces.adf.api (ie the API jar) to my IDE there > will > be no code completion for internal/impl > (org.apache.myfaces.adf.internalpackage). Right?
Yes that is correct. However, if you want to actually run the code, you'll need the impl as well. IDEs don't always make a distinction between compilation dependencies and runtime dependencies, so the impl stuff tends to end up on the classpath anyway. When users type "org.apache.myfaces.adf." and observe the code completion suggestions, it would be preferable if the unsupported impl packages are not shown. tc, -john. -- http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10044 Author: Pro JSF and Ajax: Building Rich Internet Components, Apress
