Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > Tim Ellison wrote: >> I disagree -- we spent a good period of time last summer carving up the >> class library into modules defined by Java and internal APIs. I believe >> it would be detrimental to disregard these boundaries by compiling >> against the entire Java APIs, as that would perpetuate the 'spaghetti >> code syndrome'. > > Aside : there's no harm in a "rt.jar" created from our modules. Are > modules are there for development convenience? it's plausible that > we'll have a monolithic classlib distro as well as the modular one, right?
For sure, we have full freedom on how it is ultimately packaged. >> We could use compile-against stubs, but would also need them for the >> org.apache.* packages that comprise our internal APIs, for now I see no >> problem with using the actual JARs that we produce. >> > > I guess the question for me, now that I thought about it longer, is > where would we use the separate stub library? I can see us filling in > our blanks w/ stubs for whatever reason (totally fooling JAPI :) and > getting people to flesh those out... Plenty of people like to work that way (though it is not my personal preference). Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
