All,
I voted +1 on this issue, but I assumed that we would not be using
totally unqualified names... that could indeed cause integration
problems. For example, I thought that soemthing like 'j2.page-manager'
seemed short AND isolated to J2. Names like
'org.apache.jetspped.page.PageManager' are just too long. I am still +1
provided we have a relatively unique short prefix like 'j2'.
Randy
David Le Strat wrote:
On simplified naming conventions in the Spring
configs, I am -1 as well. I agree with Ate and Keith.
--- Ate Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scott T Weaver wrote:
Yup, see bullet point 5 ;)
I'm not sure you two are talking about the same
thing here...
Is bullet point 5) about the simplified naming
conventions in the Spring configs?
Or is Raphaël talking about the refactoring of our
packages we discussed several weeks ago?
For the record: I've decided I'm -1 on the
simplified naming conventions in the Spring configs
as it kills the namespace benefit which also has
been pointed out by Keith Garry Boyce.
Regards,
Ate
-Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Raphaël Luta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:25 AM
To: Jetspeed Developers List
Subject: Re: New development branch
+1.
We could also use this branch to test the
refactoring of package names you
proposed wome weeks ago.
Scott T Weaver wrote:
As I was working on getting the engine unit tests
to work, I noticed
there
are still many places were we still need to
refactor things into Spring
or
make them better "citizens" so to speak. As to
avoid messing anyone up
I am
going to create a new branch to commit these
changes into.
Primary goals:
1. Move as much into Spring as possible.
2. Get the Engine and PortalContext into Spring
(actually have this
working already)
3. Remove as many calls to the
org.apache.jetspeed.Jetspeed static
class as possible.
4. Refactor those services that are using
class.newInstance() to use
dependency injection.
5. Implement my proposed shorter bean naming
convention (email from
last week)
6. Reduce the number of calls to the
ComponentManager; again this is
solved by introducing dependency injection into
those classes that
currently
do not use it.
I just want to get everyone's feeling on this.
If everyone agrees I
will
log this into Jira.
Thanks,
-Scott
--
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________
David Le Strat
Blogging @ http://dlsthoughts.blogspot.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
