[seam-dev] Meeting 2011-08-17
Dan Allen
dan.j.allen at gmail.com
Wed Aug 17 15:41:46 EDT 2011
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 23:12, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 17/08/11 13:05, Dan Allen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:57, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course, but we break that rule. Solder is one example, there's
>> multiple utility classes in the implementation that are required to compile
>> other modules.
>>
>
> I consider that a bug (or a work in progress, depending on how you look
> at it).
>
>
> George suggested that we make solder a single jar, and to me it makes sense
> considering it's a set of utility features, and it would solve this problem.
>
I don't agree. Solder is not just utility classes. It has very clear APIs
and implementations in some places. There is quite a lot of implementation
detail, in fact, to implement things like the service handler and the
generic beans.
I am okay with moving more of the utility classes into the API, if they
truly are utility APIs.
Combining it all is just giving up on good design, IMO.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/seam-dev/attachments/20110817/1a54ea3b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the seam-dev
mailing list