On Jan 15, 2008 10:51 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > can you explain why you decided for an ad-hoc function module for > org.apache.james.vut.XMLVirtualUserTable > and > org.apache.james.userrepository.UsersLDAPRepository > > instead of using the avalon-user-function for them, too?
dependency management > In the svn log I see "Created module to home user implementations > without dependencies", but I don't understand what are the > "dependencies" that avalon-user-function has and that > basic-user-function doesn't want. > > As far as I can tell the 2 classes above makes use of avalon stuff the > same way the org.apache.james.vut.JDBCVirtualUserTable or other classes > from avalon-user-function do... the classes contain avalon glue code but avalon is not essential to their function > I don't like too much to have a function for *2* almost *unrelated* > classes. At a first overview that's what I call antipattern of the > modularization, but it is possible that I'm missing the point behind > that choice. no: neither course or fine grained systems are pattern or anti-patterns. overly fine granularity is a code smell. the coursely-grained packaging system used in JAMES pretty much forces a finely grained use of modules - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
