It seems like a good idea if done tastefully :-) and we are probably ready for a cleanup of that code too.
Bob On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) > > > I agree 100% -- we should have clearly defined public API in all areas, so > that we know what we're committing to when we roll out the 1.0 release. > > >> >> >> Ian >> >
