db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dibyendu Majumdar <dibye...@mazumdar.demon.co.uk>
Subject Re: Reducing module dependencies
Date Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:36:20 GMT

On 12 Feb 2008, at 05:45, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
> Not much, but I don't think any scheme will stop that. If the coder  
> thought that the function was appropriate then they will code it no  
> matter what. If the constant they need is not available (e.g. not  
> public), then they will simply make a local definition of it.
>
> There's a patch out there for Derby which creates a new service  
> level api and it includes an implementation class (o.a.d.*.impl.*)  
> from a higher level module. So all the code was correctly laid out,  
> but still the modularity would be broken.
>
> It's more creating an understanding of modularity.
>

Agreed. Maintaining modularity requires constant policing :-(

What are your thoughts on DERBY-3405? Some of the undesirable  
interactions can be prevented using technologies such as OSGI.

Secondly, is there a reason why StoredFormatIds cannot be moved to  
the reference package, seeing that it is also reference data?

Regards

Dibyendu


Mime
View raw message