Yeah, our current social directory structure is all messed up because of the fact that we deleted 1/3 of the code base :)
I think we not only need to fix the interfaces.. but we need to restructure everything. "dataservice" should no longer be a package. "canonical" and "samplecontainer" should probably be one package. "opensocial" may not make sense... "opensocial.util" should prob be renamed "converters" etc etc. So, yes, I fully support a restructuring. - Cassie On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Ian Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I am wondering if we should have better package separation between the > Impl's and API's ? > > eg > ActivityService, PersonService and the other service API's are in the same > package as the Handlers etc > > Activity is in the same package as ActivityImpl. > > why does it matter ? > > Here are some IMHO's > > 1. For those implementing the API's and doing integration is identifies the > parts they need to implement. > 2. It makes the bindings clearer for those inside the core, and encourages > binding to interface where practical. > 3. If bundling in OSGi or some other packager it makes it easier to export > the right API's to the rest of the container. > > WDYT? > (Happy to do the refractor as necessary, but don't want to tread on toes and > disrupt other work) > > Ian >
