Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 65107 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2010 12:14:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 18 Aug 2010 12:14:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 8318 invoked by uid 500); 18 Aug 2010 12:14:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 8108 invoked by uid 500); 18 Aug 2010 12:14:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 8101 invoked by uid 99); 18 Aug 2010 12:14:41 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:14:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of akarasulu@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.50] (HELO mail-fx0-f50.google.com) (209.85.161.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:14:19 +0000 Received: by fxm20 with SMTP id 20so239961fxm.37 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:13:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=T/DlZsrepo9a0HEaYPosCS7jU6VH9UQuQXhkyrV6/TE=; b=vpVbXbQtuLYI6A+wjAqrDXdb/6s4vCuBOcSeDA/7alevZ/AX/7KEIuGl5AUgFxrWlm Oqn6iXlyFNP3ep0V+fFfZb26b6MHG0uli5FiIWaSSKXSKMee2gAg4nw3/jtvqnt//4ao +4ojqkhQ1etUefR6zK/bg5wbP2iSRzyvIRoJk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=GeLYBl+U3ZcZt0DfsPNZ5/wlR4F+oi6nWOj6jmLfK+ydkO4wI/Tz4GpCeRGiNdFH9/ HCmCO8Q2EqUNdFNCxRKIdb1ZGX3UYylTamrFpZXwksSrloQuryRla+SXCQ2R0MtDwT9t 1R8I2bMVxalPFIE0ev0IR5+AWkvLXOcdQ96VU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.190.133 with SMTP id x5mr298995hbh.164.1282133639393; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: akarasulu@gmail.com Received: by 10.239.190.78 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:13:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4C6BA249.10703@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:13:59 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: IxkwIRVrKpUkhrx05_7yKMNCu1Y Message-ID: Subject: Re: Message cleanup, next step... From: Alex Karasulu To: Apache Directory Developers List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f5ce1e2172d4048e180005 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001485f5ce1e2172d4048e180005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kiran Ayyagari wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > now that most of the work is done for the message merge, I have a > question : > > - should we keep the message interfaces in a separate package ? > > > > Atm, all the message implementation are in > > org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.message, while their associated > interfaces > > are in org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.message.internal. > > (btw, the 'internal' term is probably misleading : it was meant as > 'internal > > to the server', when we had 3 different kind of messages) > > > > Back two years ago, we had a different layout where the messages and > their > > interfaces where in the same package > > (org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.message) : > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/shared/tags/0.9.13/ldap/src/main/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/message/ > > > > > > I suggest we move back to this layout, if no one object. > > > > wdyt ? > +1 on separate packages: o.a.d.s.l.message for interfaces sounds right at top level then maybe a o.a.d.s.l.message.implementation or perhaps o.a.d.s.l.message.default ? But message interfaces should be at the higher level package with the implementors below. -- Alex Karasulu My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/ Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu --001485f5ce1e2172d4048e180005 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kiran = Ayyagari <kayy= agari@apache.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Emmanuel= Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> =A0Hi guys,
>
> now that most of the work is done for the message merge, I have a ques= tion :
> - should we keep the message interfaces in a separate package ?
>
> Atm, all the message implementation are in
> org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.message, while their associated inter= faces
> are in org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.message.internal.
> (btw, the 'internal' term is probably misleading : it was mean= t as 'internal
> to the server', when we had 3 different kind of messages)
>
> Back two years ago, we had a different layout where the messages and t= heir
> interfaces where in the same package
> (org.apache.directory.shared.ldap.message) :
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/shared/tags/0.9.13/ldap/src/main= /java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/message/
>
>
> I suggest we move back to this layout, if no one object.
>
> wdyt ?

+1 on separate = packages:

o.a.d.s.l.message for interfaces sounds = right at top level then maybe a=A0o.a.d.s.l.message.implementation or perha= ps=A0o.a.d.s.l.message.default ? But message interfaces should be at the hi= gher level package with the implementors below.=A0


--
Alex Karasulu
My Blog :: http://www.jroller.com/akarasulu/
Apa= che Directory Server :: http://dire= ctory.apache.org
Apache MINA :: http://mina.apache.org
To set up a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/AlexKarasulu
--001485f5ce1e2172d4048e180005--