Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Nov 25, 2007 6:34 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Nov 25, 2007 6:06 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > <snip> > >>>> 5 unsure about the granularity of avalon-user-function and >>>> jdbc-user-function. lots of small components allows precision but >>>> perhaps might be better to aggregate into large units including all >>>> backend implementation of the same type. for example, >>>> avalon-backend-function including all the avalon* implementations >>>> (AvalonRepository and so on). >>>> >>>> opinions? >>> IMO it's better to aggregate jdbc-user-function to avalon-user-function. >> why? > > i've adopted stefano's suggestion but a longer explanation would be > appreciated > > - robert
My main motivation was about having a limited number of modules. IMHO we should keep the number of modules under the 20, otherwise it will become worse than the old all-in-one structure. IMHO having modules with very few classes in there does not make too much sense: I prefer to use java packages for that. IMHO too many modules is an anti pattern. Also both jdbc and avalon user function are avalon functions. AvalonUsersRepository should be probably better named FileUsersRepository. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
