On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Alex Karasulu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> On 1/29/11 10:38 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> [X] - (c) > >>>> interface = AddRequest > >>>> simple API exposed implementation = > AddRequest*Impl* > >>>> not so simple internal use implementation = > >>>> AddRequest*Decoder* > >>>> We're applying option 'C' right now. I'm torn but think A might suite > us > >>>> better for the long term, and for any situation. You also know what's > an > >>>> interface and what's not although the IDE automatically shows you this > >>>> stuff > >>>> on the package/class browser. > >>>> > >>> This is my opinion for a low-level API, which 1:1 maps LDAP > >>> terminology to the Java API. I think we should additional have a > >>> simplified API where the user don't need to deal with request and > >>> response objects at all. > >>> > >>> BTW: We have this discussion again and again ;-) We really need to > >>> decide a consistent naming. > >>> > >> > >> I think we already discussed it more than once, and we all agreed on > this > >> convention. > >> > >> I'm not sure we want to rehash this again every 2 years :/ > >> > >> > > When there's a push to release a 1.0 of an API, we need to make the API > > consistent. I can do this myself but the community way is to have a > > discussion. If you do not want to discuss this feel free not to > > participate, or say you don't care. > > I don't see that anyone said that the API development should not be > community driven. > I did not suggest anyone said that. If you read above I am saying I have no choice but to post and share with the community rather than do it myself. -- Alex Karasulu My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/ Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu
