If I may state my humble opinion:

1) users, even java-based ruleset authors, do not care l about how ugly our internal code is :)
1b) I like single concise class with few entries more than a pack of 5-line .java files.

2) RulePhase.<Ctrl+space> is much much quicker than looking up the information.
The thing is, that our users do not even know that there's some superclass they can look for, they will just copy the quickstarts, and seeing
RulePhase.Initial.class suggests very clearly that there are more to pick from in RulePhase. Whereas "InitialPhase.class" doesn't.

3) Keeping them in one file will make it easier for us to maintain - the order will be hinted by the order of appearance, and potential errors getExecuteAfter() will be more obvious.

my2c.
Ondra

On 27.1.2015 04:39, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:

Hey, good question, but no. You can always look in that package and see all of the phases we have. Or use the IDE to quick-search for types implementing RulePhase, etc. Not worth making ugly code for that when the IDE or GitHub will tell you exactly the same information.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Ondrej Zizka <ozizka@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi,

I am updating the quickstarts to match the recent changes
WINDUP-277 Replace Migration "Phases" with dependencies .

The subclasses are small and just a few.
Could we move them as inner classes of RulePhase?
This would be beneficial:
1) One could write "RulePhase." to get a list of built-in phases instead of going to the documentation.
2) We would get rid of several small .java files

Ondra

_______________________________________________
windup-dev mailing list
windup-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev

--

Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
_______________________________________________
windup-dev mailing list
windup-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev