Mailing-List: contact dev-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4E552417.1050002@die-schneider.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:17:27 +0200
From: Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@camel.apache.org
Subject: Re: Scope of org.apache.camel.spi
References: <4E538313.8010002@die-schneider.net>
 <CAGB5yNkAyOhCktLunMSN+zNWw8nTECr5LYJUoSv-0y-0h2ipeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E54F6E0.3010202@die-schneider.net>
 <CAGB5yNkk_VD+pujQBkXO_uhkjd0vDWbd8RtG37sSsJqedmg-OQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGB5yNkk_VD+pujQBkXO_uhkjd0vDWbd8RtG37sSsJqedmg-OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Claus,

we can do that but then we have to move the impl classes somewhere else. 
We may not mix impl and api in the same package. This is what leads to 
cycles.

Christian


Am 24.08.2011 17:53, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Christian Schneider
> <chris@die-schneider.net>  wrote:
>> So where do you propose to put them?
>>
>> 1. org.apache.camel
>> 2. org.apache.camel.api.management
>>
> I propose to put them here, where they where already
> 3. org.apache.camel.management
>
> These annotations are part of the management API in Camel and IMHO
> should be in that package.
>
>
>
>> I propose to go with 2 and create an api package with subpackages so we can
>> structure org.apache.camel better. In the long run I would like to also move
>> the whole camel api into an api package to make it clearer but that will
>> probably create too much incompatibility.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> Am 24.08.2011 14:13, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
>>> <chris@die-schneider.net>    wrote:
>>>> I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs the
>>>> org.apache.camel (API) package.
>>>>
>>>> I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
>>>>
>>>> 1) API interfaces are called by the user to invoke functionality of the
>>>> framework. So API interfaces are implemented by the framework. SPI
>>>> interfaces are implemented by the user to change functionality of the
>>>> framework or for callbacks
>>>> 2) SPI interfaces are for third party modules while API interfaces are
>>>> for
>>>> users
>>>>
>>>> So the current case for me is the new JMX annotations. Are they SPI
>>>> interfaces or API interfaces?
>>>>
>>> They are API interfaces. Just like @Consumer, @Produce and any of the
>>> other API Camel annotations we have.
>>> Its just that these annotations is for management enabling your
>>> business logic / custom components or whatnot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So what is your opinion about the specific and the general case.
>>>>
>>>> As a side question: The org.apache.camel package has grown quite large. I
>>>> think we should create specialized packages for it. As we are talking
>>>> about
>>>> the camel API org.apache.camel.api.* would be a good name in my opinion.
>>>> So
>>>> the questions are: Should we create such specialized packages? Should we
>>>> move API parts there? Should we only use the new packages for new stuff?
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Christian Schneider
>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>>
>>>> Open Source Architect
>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>
>> Open Source Architect
>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com