Hi folks, this is a list of our implementation packages that have a corresponding API package:
org.apache.http.impl org.apache.http.impl.entity * org.apache.http.impl.io * org.apache.http.nio.impl org.apache.http.async.impl org.apache.http.client.impl org.apache.http.conn.impl org.apache.http.cookie.impl Does anyone else feel we're sending a mixed message? (*) The original idea may have been that each component gets it's own impl root package. But since then, we've started to split components into modules and merge some components into one, and we may be spinning off modules or components in the future. I believe we should have a common naming pattern for those impl packages that map to an API package. Putting the .impl. after the API package name allows for more natural navigation. On the other hand, HttpCore is already used by some, so we might break less code if we always put the .impl directly after the .http. I don't have a problem with subpackages that don't map to an API package, such as .nio.impl.codecs or .conn.impl.accm (for Advanced Client Connection Manager, if there should be one in the future). What do you think? If we're going to straighten this out, it should be with the next core alpha. cheers, Roland --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
