Currently our api is very small, which is good. But I do not share your thaughts about it, getting to big. Compared to most jsrs that include a ri it is still very small. Additionally stopping the discussion because of that prevents api design discussions, which are more important.
Cheers Anatole Oliver B. Fischer <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr., 20. März 2015 um 19:25: > See below > > Am 20.03.15 um 11:21 schrieb Anatole Tresch: > > > > Adding the builder to this central place would consequently mean to move > > its API to the API package as well. I am fine with that. If we keep it > > separate, we must have some alternate entry point. Given that the builder > > module can also have logic for building other artifacts, e.g. a > > PropertySource, we might create an entry point named: > > > > ConfigBuilders > > > > WDYT? > > > I am not sure if we should do it or not. I like the initial idea of a > small API and optional extensions. The advantage of an small API is that > it is easy to implement it. If we start to add to much to the API I am > afraid that it will take much more effort to provide different > impementations aside from new RuntimeException("Not implemented yet."). > > Oliver > > -- > N Oliver B. Fischer > A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany > P +49 30 44793251 > M +49 178 7903538 > E [email protected] > S oliver.b.fischer > J [email protected] > X http://xing.to/obf > >
