beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Feit <richf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: netui-core module
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:24:21 GMT
I just thought about this for two minutes more.

I would prefer to err on the side of more modules, not fewer modules.  
They're trivial to combine, and can be difficult to untangle.  Having 
more seems to encourage a cleaner separation and hierarchy of code.  How 
strongly do you feel about not adding another one here?

Rich

Rich Feit wrote:

> I'd be happy to do that (although I thought that originally URL 
> templating/rewriting seemed more basic than Page Flow), but if we do 
> ever decide that the "core" category makes sense (for Factory, 
> beehive-netui-config.xml-related classes, etc.), it seems like there's 
> still a use for the core module.
>
> That said, if we're trying to limit the number of modules, I wouldn't 
> be opposed to moving org.apache.beehive.netui.core AND all of the 
> "scoping" module into the "pageflow" module.  What do you think?
>
> Rich
>
> Eddie ONeil wrote:
>
>> Rich--
>>
>>  How about just moving the urltemplating code that requires scoping
>> into the src/pageflow source module?  This wouldn't require a new
>> source module and doesn't change any dependencies, though it does
>> break a package across modules (which isn't terrible).
>>
>>  Thoughts?
>>
>> Eddie
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/8/05, Richard Feit <richard.feit@bea.com> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> I caused a lot of confusion with my arrows.  :)  Those arrows meant
>>> "depends on", but that's not how most people outside of me would view
>>> it.  Reversing them, you get:
>>>
>>>    util -> scoping -> core
>>>
>>> ...where before, it was:
>>>
>>>    scoping -> util
>>>
>>> ...which meant that util depended on scoping.  That dependency was in a
>>> class in org.apache.beehive.netui.core, which would now live in a 
>>> "core"
>>> module.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>>  And, we still have to split the "netui.util" package across the
>>>> "util" and "core" packages because the Logger and
>>>> InternalConcurrentHashMap classes live in "netui.util".  Moving
>>>> "netui.core" isn't sufficient, right?
>>>>
>>>> Eddie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daryl Olander wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>> What about reversing the order of Scoping and Util?  What in Util has
>>>>> dependencies on Scoping?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/8/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, exactly.  I'd move org.apache.beehive.netui.core.* from util
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> core (and I agree about "core" vs. "netui-core").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rich--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things like the Logger and InternalConcurrentHashMap are in
>>>>>>> netui.util, so would you propose splitting netui.util across
the 
>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>> modules:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> netui-core
>>>>>>> util
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What specific util classes would you move into a core module?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, how about just calling it "core" rather than "netui-core"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eddie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rich Feit wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to split out org.apache.beehive.netui.core.* into
a 
>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>> module: "netui-core".  This will allow the following string
of
>>>>>>>> dependencies:
>>>>>>>>  netui-core -> scoping -> util
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently, the order is:
>>>>>>>>  util -> scoping
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which, in addition to being weird, is limiting for scoping

>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>> can't use any of the basic util classes like Logger, the
>>>>>>>> concurrent-read-map class, etc.  Let me know if you have
any other
>>>>>>>> thoughts about this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>
>>  
>>
>

Mime
View raw message