Michael Wechner schrieb:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Michael Wechner schrieb:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Hi Lenya devs,
ATM we build the javadocs for all modules separately. This wouldn't
be necessary if all modules used a package convention, e.g.
API: org.apache.lenya.modules.foo
org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.util
org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.xyz
Impl: org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.impl
org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.util.impl
org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.xyz.impl
what about custom packages? I guess you still would have to build
them separately?
What do you mean with "custom packages"?
e.g. com.microsoft.lenya.modules.foo
Hmm, I don't think they would make it into the ASF project, would they?
If they are donated, I think it makes sense to adapt the package names
to the ASF conventions.
IMO the convention makes sense independently from the javadocs. For
instance, you can tell from the declaration of a sitemap component
which module it belongs to.
can you give an example?
The ProxyTransformer is currently in the package
org.apache.lenya.cms.cocoon.transformation. If you read this in the
sitemap, you have no idea in which module you have to look for the API
documentations.
I guess we'd have to postpone this to the next major release,
though, because it would break backwards compatibility.
break backwards compatibility just because of javadocs?
Like I said, the change doesn't make sense in the stable branch.
I understood that, but I am not sure if it makes sense for a further
release in the future
I'm not sure myself - maybe this discussion will help :)
-- Andreas
--
Andreas Hartmann, CTO
BeCompany GmbH
http://www.becompany.ch
Tel.: +41 (0) 43 818 57 01
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
