<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Pete Muir <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pmuir@redhat.com">pmuir@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> All @Interceptor classes must:</div><div class="im">
> • Adhere to the following package and naming scheme: org.jboss.seam.intercept.*Interceptor<br>
<br>
</div>No, why would we want to do this? Classes defined in a module should reside in a package owned by that package. It prevents any risk of namespace clashes<br><br></blockquote><div>Referring back to Lincoln's suggestion, I though we were using org.jboss.seam.{module}.intercept.*Interceptor? That would make them easier to locate in the API docs yet still reside in a package owned by the module. I just worry that if we scatter interceptors (and decorators) further down in the packaging of a module, it will be harder to enforce consistency from one module to the next. Is that a reasonable convention?</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Dan</div><div> </div></div>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>