Hi, On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> wrote: > i keep wondering what was the reason for keeping implementations > of the oak-api in different packages. specifically i don't fully > understand what was the logic behind having some classes > in the oak.core package (KernelContentSession), while others > are in the oak.kernel package (KernelPropertyState).
My original idea for the different packages was: * .oak.kernel - type-safe wrapper (NodeState, etc.) for the MicroKernel interface * .oak.core - implementation of the Oak API based on .oak.kernel Currently that distinction is a bit blurred, and I agree that it should be fixed. However, instead of moving everything to the same package, let's do something like this: * Keep the MicroKernel wrappers in .oak.kernel * Move the Oak API implementation classes to .oak.core * Perhaps rename the classes in .oak.core from KernelSomething to SomethingImpl to avoid confusion > so, i would like to suggest that we move the classes from the > kernel package to the core package. > if nobody objects i would go ahead and commit the move later > on today. Does the above alternative sound good to you? BR, Jukka Zitting
