Ok,
I'll start local branch, create a jira and push a patch there as a
strawman.
Is now a good time ? Thinking of limiting it to social-api first.
Ian
On 22 Jul 2008, at 05:49, Robert Evans wrote:
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
