On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So how about >> >> contribution-metadata - I can never find this stuff >> contribution (or core-contribution or contribution-runtime) for all >> the spi/infrastructure type of stuff >> contribution-xxxx >> >> Simon >> > > Continuing with these changes, to clarify what we think are -metadata > classes, spi/infrastructure, etc, it looks like we have the following > functions in the contribution module: > > - model and xml processors for the sca-contribution.xml file > - generic code shared by all the model/xml modules like > BaseStAXArtifactProcessor > - runtime contribution service classes > > so would it be reasonable to split the current contribution module up > like that? > > Does the generic code like BaseStAXArtifactProcessor need to be in its > own contribution-xxx module or could it be somewhere shared like the > existing spi module? > > ...ant >
Ok, looking at it now the name "contribution-metadata" seems a little awkward so we could stick with "contribution" as the module that models the contribution an (now) contains the code to do all the processing to read and create that model. I think we should have the support for import/export namespace and java as separate modules as they implement extension points independent of the actual contribution processing. Re. the generic code classes. It's certainly shared by lots of other modules which currently depend on contribution. We could fluff up something like core-contribution. Do the core-* module though only contain runtime things? Alternatively I could be persuaded just leave it where it is. Simon
