> The classes are referenced from the spring config but they belong to the impl
> classes so why introduce a new package?

Basically we can leave exception mapper and resource comparator in 
core.services, there is one thing that make me unsure:
Exception mapper and resource comparator depend from CXF, service 
implementations basically not. Does it make sense to mix these classes in one 
package?

Regards,
Andrei.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:cschneider...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Schneider
> Sent: Montag, 21. Januar 2013 11:25
> To: dev@syncope.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discussion] Rest package names
> 
> On 21.01.2013 11:14, Andrei Shakirin wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> >>> 2.       Resource comparators and server exception mapper:
> >> org.apache.syncope.core.rest.utils (actually
> org.apache.syncope.core.rest).
> >> It makes purpose of these classes more clear.
> >> Generally I don't like util packages. I would put these helpers into
> >> the same package as the service impls as they are only referenced from
> there.
> > They are referenced not from service package, but from spring service
> configuration.
> > Theoretically they can be used with some different service
> implementations.
> > Perhaps "helpers" sounds better as "utils"?
> The classes are referenced from the spring config but they belong to the impl
> classes so why introduce a new package?
> 
> >
> >>> 3.       Client exception mapper: org.apache.syncope.client.rest.utils
> >> (unfortunately cannot be combined with server mapper, because server
> >> exception mapper have a lot of dependencies of core specific
> exceptions).
> >> Why not client.rest? If we keep the client proxy classes in some form
> >> we could also put it there.
> > I would like to keep it symmetric with core, otherwise it will be confusing.
> Makes sense to make it similar to core. That is why I propose to also avoid
> the util if we avoid it in core. Of course if we choose util in core then it 
> makes
> sense to do the same on the client side.
> 
> Christian

Reply via email to