On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@apache.org> wrote:
On 4/24/11 12:17 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:

At some point, for an extra effort (ie splitting this module in two with
explicit names) would probably help.

Yeah that would have been good but there's one extra little PITA problem
here. By splitting it you're going to have to have 4 modules. Right now
there are 2. One for the API holding the non-opaque control and extop
interfaces with specific accessor/mutator pairs to their payloads and the
actual codec extension (implementation) which does the work of
[de]marshalling to and fro.

If we break this up into a extras-controls and an extras-extended-ops we'll
have created two more new modules not just one for a total of 4 modules to
handle them.

Something more to think about.

I wasn't thinking about having 2 distinguished modules, but something like extra-extensions could be better. I don't really know, except that extra-codec does not fit.

At least, I wanted to ope a discussion around this.

I'm open to anything that brings more clarity. I agree that extras-codec is not very intuitive at describing what exactly is contained in the module.