ott,
>
> marcf
>
> |-Original Message-
> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
> |M Stark
> |Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 4:03 PM
> |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Package organization
> |
> |
> |I&#
yes clearly scott,
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 4:03 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Package organization
|
|
|I'm not saying style is not important
ginal Message -
From: "Jason Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Scott M Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Package organization
> You are right... what _was_ I thinking an
You are right... what _was_ I thinking anyways?!? Style... pfff who
needs it!
I am going to go stick my head is a bucket.
Code is important. Code is Art. Art has style. Therefor code has
style and is important.
Of course the first two points are completely subjective. One might
think tha
Well, since none of your example changes jump out and scream
I am a much clearer packaging model, I would say this is a
matter of style and as such, not really that important.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Me
Yes but...
While I agree with you that organization by function often makes more sense
that by type, and in particular in regards to the metadata mess, I think
there is one good reason to package by type, that applies to both the
deployers and the proxies:
Put interfaces to the outside world in
