On Monday, 2012-10-08, Josh Wills wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Matthias Friedrich <[email protected]> wrote: [...] >> I used the javadoc tool's grouping and exclusion mechanism to only >> display packages that I think should be part of the published API. >> See [1] on how this could look like, compared to our current >> documentation at [2]. Is this list correct? Did I miss something? > lib.join.* seems to be the biggest thing missing. Hmm, right. It's the reference to JoinFn that needs .lib.join, otherwise we could exclude .lib.join. Maybe it would be better to move the Join class to .lib.join? That's where I would look for it. >> With just some exclusions I got from 243 classes/interfaces down to >> 158. We could reduce this even further by making implementation >> classes package private where possible. I'll run an analysis as soon >> as we have agreed on the set of published packages.
Update: It's not as many as I thought (~30), and most are excluded anyway. >> I'm not sure about the "Other Packages" section. o.a.c.tool should >> probably be removed, with its content thrown into the util package. >> Part of the o.a.c.types looks like it would be better off in the >> base package (PType, PTypeFamily) while the rest looks like helper >> functionality for o.a.c.types.* that shouldn't be published. What >> do you think? > I have a sentimental attachment to o.a.c.tool b/c it reminds me of the > Scrunch PipelineApp stuff, but on the other hand I never end up using > it for anything. Agree w/you w/respect to moving much of the rest of > o.a.c.util into o.a.c.types. OK, to sum it up: * Protos, PTypes -> .types * CrunchTool -> .util * Remove Collects because it's unused? Regards, Matthias
