Sure. I prefer explicit imports too ... I'm guess I'm just too used to an
IDE.
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Hughes
Web Services Invocation Framework
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Russell |
| | Butek/Austin/IBM@|
| | IBMUS |
| | |
| | 28/05/2002 18:56 |
| | Please respond to|
| | axis-dev |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: WSIF package names
|
|
|
|
|
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+1 to org.apache.wsif.wsdl.extensions.
A comment about the code. Might it be possible to replace all the import
wildcards with explicit imports? I know some IDE's do that fairly easily,
and if you happen to be using one of those, I'd appreciate it.
Import wildcards are a personal pet peeve of mine. They make developing
the code easier, but development is a very tiny part of the total life
cycle of code. Most of its time is spent in maintenance or - particularly
in the case of opensource code - learning the code, and most of the people
maintaining/learning the code have no clue about its structure. If you
don't happen to have a friendly IDE that tells you where a class comes
from, the import statement is the next easiest way to find its source.
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeremy Hughes/UK/IBM@IBMGB on 05/28/2002 12:14:15 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: WSIF package names
Until a WSIF specific mailing list I have posted here ...
The decision to use org.apache.wsif as the package name has been
unanimously accepted. So we will change com.ibm.wsif to org.apache.wsif.
But there are also some packages under com.ibm.wsdl in wsif.jar which
contain the WSDL extensions WSIF registers with WSDL4J. Specifically:
com.ibm.wsdl.extensions
com.ibm.wsdl.extensions.ejb
com.ibm.wsdl.extensions.format
com.ibm.wsdl.extensions.instance
com.ibm.wsdl.extensions.java
com.ibm.wsdl.extensions.jms
My instinct tells me to put these under org.apache.wsif.wsdl.extensions
instead of org.apache.wsdl.extensions since org.apache.wsdl may (now? or in
the future) be taken by another project.
I'd appreciate votes from anyone concerned with WSIF.
Thanks,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Hughes
Web Services Invocation Framework
