On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Pete Muir
<pmuir@redhat.com> wrote:
> All @Interceptor classes must:
> • Adhere to the following package and naming scheme: org.jboss.seam.intercept.*Interceptor
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
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?
-Dan