Simon Nash wrote:
At the moment these interfaces are in the org.apache.tuscany.core
package. This package name is also used by core implementation code,
which is confusing.
Is it the intention to change the package name for these SPI interfaces
to something else to avoid confusion between SPIs and implementation?
For example, the SPIs could have a package name containing "spi".
I think it's inmportant to do this in order to clearly separate SPI
interfaces from implementation code.
Simon
Good point, SPI interfaces and their implementations should be in
different packages.
I'm not too keen on adding .spi. to all the packages containing our
interfaces. I would prefer to have a simpler scheme:
o.a.t.core is the SPI
o.a.t.core.impl is the implementation
Same for our models:
o.a.t.contribution, o.a.t.assembly for the interfaces
o.a.t.contribution.impl, o.a.t.assembly.impl for the implementations
I see two benefits to that:
- the packages that most people use are simpler
- if you are using classes in .impl. you are warned that you're using
the implementations directly.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
