On 5/4/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Sounds good to me. ...ant
