crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Wills <josh.wi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving PType and friends
Date Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:00:11 GMT
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Gabriel Reid <gabriel.reid@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27 Oct 2012, at 18:06, Matthias Friedrich <matt@mafr.de> wrote:
>
>> we have made some progress cleaning up javadocs and some packages, but
>> there are a few more things I'd like to do. Right now, not all
>> abstractions are in the base package, which means they won't be on the
>> same javadoc package page and users won't recognize them as core
>> concepts.
>>
>> Thus, I propose to move the PType, PTypeFamily, PTableType, Converter,
>> and OutputHandler types to the base package. This would have the
>> advantage that the .types and .io packages would become pure
>> implementation packages, breaking package dependency cycles. We could
>> then hide the .types package from the javadoc overview page because
>> nothing there would be client-facing anymore.
>
> I'm on board with the moving of PType, PTypeFamily, and PTableType classes
> to the base package (although it seems a shame because the package name
> that they're in already got changed once).
>
> However, I'm less sure about moving Converter and OutputHandler, as I don't
> really see these as core (external) abstractions. It kind of feels like moving those
> will just clutter up the base package.

+100

>
> - Gabriel
>

Mime
View raw message