I'll make the changes after I clean up the code.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Interfaces for implementation/binding extensions to provide
runtime behaviors
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
