On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:23:48 +0200 Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Julien Vermillard wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:19:11 +0200 > > Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> IMHO, IoEvent and IoEventType belongs to an event package, under > >>>>> the session package. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> IMO two classes are not enough reason to create a package. Also > >>>> we need to be careful about move too many things around > >>>> needlessly. Remember each change you make will impact users. > >>>> > >>>> Alex > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> for session.event & session.config it's not enought for a package > >>> > >>> > >> ok. Makes sense. > >> > >>> for write, it should go in session because it really tied to > >>> session > >>> > >> session.write ? > >> > >> > >> > >>> Now I start to wonder why we got this "common" package perhaps all > >>> that can go directly to o.a.mina root ? > >>> > >>> > >> This will impact all the imports in ftpserver and asyncweb, but we > >> can do it. > >> > >> > >>> Julien > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks Emmanuel for the big commit, everything is compiling fine > > here. Everybody will need to rename there import in mina 2.0 apps. > > > > Now I would like to discuss about the *.common.* package ? does we > > need it ? I think no, it's increasing import length for no much > > gain. > Well, after having looked at the hierarchy, I think it would be > better to keep this extra level, as you have filter, handler, > transport and utils package on the same level than common. > > I would rather suggest we rename it to core, or keep common as a name. > > wdyt ? > +1 for renaming to core like the module
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
