As indicated, I've started the package cleanup (PLUTO-537).
But... while doing this, the more it becomes clear this whole SPI package
naming really isn't that appropriate.
While the SPI packaging indicates "pluggable" interfaces to be
provided/implemented by the portal,
in practice a large part of the Pluto provided SPI implementation classes really are very core/generic/standard and are unlikely to be
(completely) replaced by an embedding portal.
And then, some other interfaces *are* expected to be provided, extended or
replaced by the embedding portal.
Furthermore, some interfaces are more Object model like, while others clearly
are services like.
I'm now planning to follow the suggestion Carsten already somewhat made in his initial proposal, and use a much more descriptive packaging
structure (based on the previously targeted packaging) which also better "aligns" with the jar "container" naming:
container-api:
- move o.a.p.* to o.a.p.container
- move o.a.p.driver.* to o.a.p.container.driver
- move.o.a.p.spi.* to o.a.p.container
- move.o.a.p.om.portlet.* to o.a.p.container.om.portlet
and:
- move all o.a.p.container *services* to o.a.p.container.services
container (impl):
- move o.a.p.impl.* to o.a.p.container.impl
- move o.a.p.driver.impl.* to o.a.p.container.driver.impl
- move o.a.p.om.portlet|portlet10.impl to
o.a.p.container.om.portlet|portlet10.impl
- move o.a.p.spi.impl to o.a.p.container.impl
- move.o.a.p.impl.util to o.a.p.container.util
and:
- move all o.a.p.container.impl Default*Services (or similar like
PortletContextManager) to o.a.p.container.driver.impl
- move all o.a.p.container.impl Request/Response*ContextImpl to
o.a.p.container.driver.impl.DefaultRequest/Response*Context
(these really will be only light weight implementations and primarily for
usage by Pluto Portal Driver)
Regards,
Ate
Ate Douma wrote:
Thanks guys for the support.
I'll start moving stuff around then and apply the new packaging proposal.
Regards,
Ate
Woonsan Ko wrote:
+1 Woonsan
--- On Mon, 3/9/09, David Sean Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
From: David Sean Taylor <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Cleaning up our packages
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 5:47 PM
+1 David
On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Randy Watler wrote:
+1
Randy
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Hi Ate,
I think your proposal for the package changes
makes sense; once we have
changed this, we can have a look again and see how
it "feels" in reality :)
Carsten
