One other small detail I noticed... We have ArtifactProcessors, and ContributionPackageProcessors, should these be called only PackageProcessors ?
On 4/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Luciano Resende wrote: > I'm planning to make some refactoring on the contribution services in > order > to follow the same package naming convention as other modules are > using, and > to group related things on it's own packages and make things clear on the > contribution service. Below is what I'm thinking as the structure to > use : > > Contribution module > > - Models org.apache.tuscany.contribution > - SPI org.apache.tuscany.contribution.service > - SPI (processor) org.apache.tuscany.contribution.service.processor > > Contribution-impl module > > - Service Impl org.apache.tuscany.contribution.service.impl > - Processor Impl > org.apache.tuscany.contribution.service.processor.impl > - Util > org.apache.tuscany.contribution.service.util > > > As part of the refactoring, I'll also try to identify obsolete files > and get > rid of them (e.g some files on extension package). > > I'll try to work on this in the afternoon PST timezone, and would try > to be > as less disruptive as possible and fix all consumers of the contribution > service.Please let me know if you have any comments or questions... > Luciano, the package structure looks good now. On top of your changes, I'm going to do a much smaller refactoring and rename the *Registry to *ExtensionPoint to be consistent with our other extension points. I'll make sure I don't break anything either :) -- Jean-Sebastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende
