[seam-dev] package naming conventions

[Ken Finnigan]

On 4 Apr 2010, at 20:26, Jason Porter <lightguard.jp at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 09:23, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at 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.

Module name in package makes sense to me.

>
>
> 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.

Just thinking, with the current modularisatipn of Seam, would there  
ever be "common" interceptors / decorators? If there are then i am  
fine with option a but I would think most, if not all, would fall into  
option b.

>
> 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.

Ken Finnigan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/seam-dev/attachments/20100404/7ccb598d/attachment-0001.html