[seam-dev] Interceptor packaging convention

[Dan Allen]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at 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

-- 
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597

http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/seam-dev/attachments/20100419/485abdf5/attachment-0001.html