On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:50:26 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2018-02-10, Gilles wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:08:12 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
If a Java package and artifact ID contain "internal" or "private"
in
the
name, that would be pretty clear.
Do you suggest that, say, the benchmarking codes in
"commons-rng-jmh" should be located in a top package
named "o.a.c.rng.jmh.internal"?
Gary's response likely stems from me misunderstanding what you asked
about. I overlooked you said "modules" and assumed you were talking
about parts of an artifact which otherwise should evolve in a
backwards
compatible way.
If a whole artifact is not considered something that is there for
public
consumption as an API then I'd just say so (inside the POM, in
javadocs,
on the website ...) and not care for backwards compatibility at all.
IMHO we don't need any rules for something like this, proper
documentaton should be enough.
I'll then also assume that the layout of the maven project
can be chosen freely for those packages/modules.
For clarity's sake, in the case of "Commons RNG", I intend
to move all "non-library" codes to sub-modules of module
"commons-rng-examples".
Any objections?
Gilles
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
