On 6/20/01 7:04 PM, "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why are these in a util sub-package? Because they were in a util package, just as all the other ancillary service code is for the other services. I think the service code is distinct i.e. the three files that usually make up a service implementation. Code the service uses to function has up until this point been placed in a separate util package: within the service itself or in turbine's util package. I also like the separate package because some of this utility code is being used solely by the service but it might be possible to move these util packages to the commons eventually. If a service requires dozens of utility classes I think it makes a mess having them all in the same package. > They should be in the same > package as the rest of the service (for reasons already stated). Why? Where are the reasons, I must have missed them. > Dan > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > -- jvz. http://tambora.zenplex.org http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria http://jakarta.apache.org/commons --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
