hi pete, at least it would be great to have a separation. (so i suggested to move it e.g. to the util-package or a sub-package of it).
regards, gerhard 2012/3/27 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > This was one of the main purposes of Solder, which is where these classes > come from. Perhaps we need a deltaspike toolbox module. > > On 26 Mar 2012, at 22:01, Matt Benson wrote: > > > Could it be that certain classes belong in some DS artifact that is > > meant to serve as a toolbox for extension authors, then? > > > > Matt > > > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Jason Porter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> For now, the wiki is as good as anywhere else. > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On Mar 25, 2012, at 12:03, Pete Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Ok, I see that they are not used. So, what is the objection to these > classes? No clear use case? If so, where do I document the use cases? > >>> > >>> IMO they are all useful things for extension authors. > >>> > >>> On 25 Mar 2012, at 18:15, Pete Muir wrote: > >>> > >>>> Maybe this is just a cultural mismatch. Do Apache projects expect > people to rely on the "API" packages and Implementation packages when > writing code? > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, this goes back to my original question. How do you reduce the > visibility of these classes without affecting the API. Other classes expose > them via methods, so it's not as simple as "just reduce the visibility"... > >>>> > >>>> On 25 Mar 2012, at 18:12, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> imo they shouldn't be part of the api and i'm not sure if they fit > in the > >>>>> spi package, because you don't need them to customize deltaspike. > >>>>> they are just helpers which are even quite special for extensions > authors. > >>>>> > >>>>> regards, > >>>>> gerhard > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 2012/3/25 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, this is definitely all squarely aimed at extension authors and > not > >>>>>> end user apps IMO. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 25 Mar 2012, at 18:03, Mark Struberg wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is this useful for Extension implementers? If so we might think > about > >>>>>> putting them into spi packages? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> LieGrue, > >>>>>>> strub > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>> From: Pete Muir <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>>> Cc: > >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 6:36 PM > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [jira] [Created] (DELTASPIKE-129) re-visit > visibility of > >>>>>> AnnotationBuilder, ImmutableInjectionPoint, InjectableMethod and > >>>>>> ParameterValueRedefiner > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 25 Mar 2012, at 17:30, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> hi pete, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> that would be possible e.g. with AnnotationBuilder. however, it > isn't > >>>>>>>>> possible with all of them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -> we already moved internal helpers to > >>>>>>>>> org.apache.deltaspike.core.util > >>>>>>>>>> if< we need them in the api-module. > >>>>>>>>> they might not provide a stable api (over time) or are quite > special. > >>>>>>>>> we moved them there to remove the visibility via an > organizational > >>>>>>>> approach. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I have no problem with this approach. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Perhaps you could expand on what you mean here then? Do you mean > extract > >>>>>>>> interfaces from these classes and move the implementation to core? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I can't see how you can reduce the visibility without changing > the API? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> regards, > >>>>>>>>> gerhard > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2012/3/25 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I assume you mean the visibility of the constructors of > >>>>>>>> AnnotationBuilder, > >>>>>>>>>> ImmutableInjectioPoint, InjectableMethod, and ParameterValue? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> From: "Gerhard Petracek (Created) (JIRA)" > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [jira] [Created] (DELTASPIKE-129) re-visit visibility > of > >>>>>>>>>> AnnotationBuilder, ImmutableInjectionPoint, InjectableMethod and > >>>>>>>>>> ParameterValueRedefiner > >>>>>>>>>>> Date: 25 March 2012 16:39:27 GMT+01:00 > >>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> re-visit visibility of AnnotationBuilder, > ImmutableInjectionPoint, > >>>>>>>>>> InjectableMethod and ParameterValueRedefiner > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Key: DELTASPIKE-129 > >>>>>>>>>>> URL: > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-129 > >>>>>>>>>>> Project: DeltaSpike > >>>>>>>>>>> Issue Type: Task > >>>>>>>>>>> Components: Core > >>>>>>>>>>> Affects Versions: 0.1-incubating > >>>>>>>>>>> Reporter: Gerhard Petracek > >>>>>>>>>>> Assignee: Jason Porter > >>>>>>>>>>> Fix For: 0.2-incubating > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ... since those classes aren't intended to be used by users, we > >>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>> re-visit them. > >>>>>>>>>>> if we can't keep them package-private, we could move them to > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> util-package (like we did with ClassDeactivation now > >>>>>>>> ClassDeactivationUtils) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > >>>>>>>>>>> If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA > >>>>>>>>>> administrators: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa > >>>>>>>>>>> For more information on JIRA, see: > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >
