--- Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Tim, > > Tim OBrien wrote: > > > Good summary, comments inline... > > > > --- Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> 4/ Copied c-codec classes in official API > >> > >> To remove a dependency to c-codec the digest and hex utilities have been > >> copied to c-id, but they are now publicly available in the o.a.c.id > >> namespace. > >> > >> Martin already proposed to move them to a package o.a.c.id.internal and > >> provide an appropriate package.html. As alternative we could try to make > >> them package accessible only and remove any unused functionality (they > >> have bad coverage reports because we only use view methods). > > > > +1 with moving into an internal package with a package.html, > > > > Of two minds on the coverage issue, one one hand the class is well tested > > over in codec so you > > could just trust that the class is well tested. But, could you also just > > copy the unit tests from > > c-codec and add them into c-id. I don't see a huge problem there as long > > as there is sufficient notice in the classes to the effect of "DON'T > > CHANGE ME HERE, CHANGE ME IN COMMONS CODEC". > > If you remove the unused code, you have no tests, but coverage :) > Definitely, I see the point, I was just concerned that you might be removing something that might eventually be needed, but if you are covering c-id code you know exactly what is needed and what isn't. > Also it is much less encouraging for people to use these classes, if you > state that you have only a partial copy of the original ... > Definitely. > - Jörg > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
