Hi, Am Freitag, den 26.10.2007, 16:12 +0200 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz: > On 10/26/07, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > >... I'd put all of this inside the "sling.api" package instead of > > >"sling".... > > > ...I think the "api" in the package name is superfluous :) It's clear that > > if the package is o.a.sling that this is the api.... > > If you see it in isolation, of course you're right. > > But if someone sees all the Sling code in the same tree (for example > with merged javadocs from all Sling modules) you'd have something like
I am not sure, whether one thing (use an o.a.s.api root package) or the other (leave it as is) is the better solution. I think leaving it as is provides a clear structure of the Sling API and it aligns nicely with other API specs like JCR, Servlet. But.... These specs live in their own, isolated namespace below javax., which is reserved for API only, while the implementations are in namespaces generally defined after their project name, e.g. o.a.jackrabbit for the JCR RI. Going further ahead towards Sling and OSGi bundles, where we generally try to have all code in a single and specific package space upto the point, where the bundle symbolic name is the same as name of the root package. As such, having a root o.a.s.api package whould make lives easier. In the end, though I am at unease with the o.a.s.api idea, I agree with it because it probably is the cleanest way to separate the package spaces - unless we get javax.sling :-) But this is definitely not on my agenda. Regards Felix
