Re: [seam-dev] package naming conventions
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 09:23, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I agree we should avoid duplicate class names in the public API as a
general rule, because we've seen the confusion that has caused in the Java
EE API (@ManagedBean, @*Scoped, etc). But still, too much package sharing
can also be confusing for the developer because it becomes somewhat unclear
which modules are providing which classes. So we are agreeing that modules
use the base name space of org.jboss.seam.[module], correct? (With the
special case of interceptors/decorators, see next).
Originally I was thinking differently, but I'm good with this. It's still
easy to understand, and to a degree still follows the Seam2 package
structure so it shouldn't be that difficult to understand how to migrate.
It also helps by knowing exactly which modules you're using just by looking
at the imports. Hopefully the overlap and dependencies between modules is
kept to a minimum.
That said, Shane had brought up that interceptors and decorators
should at
least be under the module's base package (the second proposed convention for
interceptors/decorators above). We need a vote on that convention:
a) org.jboss.seam.intercept / org.jboss.seam.decorate
If there's a need to have common intercepters / decorators I'd say put them
here, otherwise go with option b. Option B is consistent with what is being
done above, so there's no ambiguity.
b) org.jboss.seam.[module].intercept /
org.jboss.seam.[module].decorate
Let's find a common ground quickly on this...it's not worth dragging out.
I agree, I dislike long conversations of this nature :) I say we're good
with this, time to move on.
--
Jason Porter
Software Engineer
Open Source Advocate
PGP key id: 926CCFF5
PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 2.6 KB)