geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Internal package name structure
Date Mon, 09 Oct 2017 18:50:57 GMT
The real reason we have both is because we have some internal components
that don't have any corresponding User API (currently).

For example, we have org.apache.geode.internal.logging and
org.apache.geode.internal.statistics but neither of these have a
non-internal package.

Do we want to start creating non-internal packages for things like logging
even if there are no classes in the non-internal package?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io> wrote:

> +1 for #2
>
> We will need to be careful refactoring existing code if classes are sent
> over the wire.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi there Geode devs,
> >
> > Whilst going through the code base I found that we have 2 differing
> > approaches of how we classify (or package structures) internal code.
> >
> > The first is /org.apache.geode.*INTERNAL*.module/ the other is
> > /org.apache.geode.module.*INTERNAL*/.
> >
> > Can anyone explain the difference to me and which one is the preferred
> > mechanism. I vote for approach 2, where the /*internal*/ package is
> defined
> > within the module/functional area.
> >
> > --Udo
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message