Mailing-List: contact crunch-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: crunch-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of josh.wills@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E0EDAF16-8798-4BE1-BA0B-FB6DB3C98883@gmail.com>
References: <20121027160647.GA9240@mafr.de>
 <E0EDAF16-8798-4BE1-BA0B-FB6DB3C98883@gmail.com>
From: Josh Wills <josh.wills@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:00:11 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CANb5z2+zv_0sNA+Y7eE4j2Vjz5nBWP9fQndXQjteg4g4xh0apA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Moving PType and friends
To: crunch-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
>