[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > Is there a reason we are allowing Turbine.java to stay outside of a
> > package?
> >
> > It requires an alias for the init properties file. So why not have:
> >
> > <servlet>
> > <servlet-name>turbine</servlet-name>
> > <servlet-class>org.apache.turbine.Turbine</servlet-class>
> >
> > <!-- also add init params -->
> > </servlet>
> >
> > Then again maybe I am missing something ;)
>
> Because early on, I wanted people to be able to install Turbine without
> having to add that alias. I wanted it to be as easy as possible.
>
> Is there so reason why this really bugs you? I have yet to hear a good
> argument about why to move it. John and Frank tried to convince me a long
> time ago and they gave up. ;-)
>
> btw, on the Exception deal...if you want to change the code go for it, but
> i'm not going to do it. ;-)
Well for one.. It breaks Alexandria... Turbine.java doesn't show up
within the javadoc generation because it expects a class.
Second...
------
>From the Java Language Specifcation: Chapter 7 (or p114 if you have the
book)
"For small programs and casual development, a package can be unnamed or
have a simple name, but if the Java code is to be widely distributed,
unique package names should be chosen. This can prevent the conflicts
that would otherwise occur if two development groups happened to pick
the same package name and these packages were later to be used in a
single program."
- The Java Language Specification
------
.. so there. Straight form the bible :)
I mean are there any benefits for it not having a package? If so then
let's leave it. If not then let's move it to a package.
--
Kevin A Burton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://relativity.yi.org
Message to SUN: "Open Source Java!"
"For evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
