harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Location for API extensions
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:09:34 GMT
I've put a first cut of the proposed package naming convention on the



Leo Simons wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:52:09PM +0300, Anton Avtamonov wrote:
>>> As I wrote elsewhere, I propose that packages whose naming convention is:
>>>        org.apache.harmony.<modulename>.<something>
>>> represent internal APIs.  All visible (public/protected) types in those
>>> packages can be used by class library developers from any module, and
>>> such developers can expect the API to be evolved in a compatible way.
>>> Module developers should not rely on the stability of anything starting:
>>>        org.apache.harmony.<modulename>.internal
>>> and are strongly discouraged from referencing visible types in such
>>> packages since these are type internal module implementation code (and
>>> when we turn on OSGi runtime checks the imports from other modules will
>>> fail).
>>>> From other hand if we are talking about using these useful classes only
>>>> inside Harmony then it's probably a good idea. But we need some procedure
>>>> for moving a class to utilities package and we need to notify developers
>>>> about class capabilities.
>>> Moving it to a 'utilities' package should be as simple as making it a
>>> non-internal package name; and the notification is javadoc of those
>>> non-internal types.
>>> If people agree I'll write something for the website along these lines,
>>> if not we can continue to debate it on the list.
> +1 (to the website thing, though debate obviously is fine too :-D).
> I personally think that it is a good idea to seperate out non-J2SE-specific
> non-Harmony-specific stuff as much as possible. I also think it is a good idea
> to evaluate very carefully on a case-by-case basis whether it makes sense to
> have that kind of code live under the "harmony" banner -- experience has shown
> that breaking out "true" utility stuff can help result in wider usage of that
> stuff which tends to result in more bugfixes, better code, etc.
> For example (and I'm being really naive here) I can imagine that java.util
> could be built on top of jakarta-commons-collections, or that java.util.logging
> could be built on top of log4j (now that'd be cool).
> But this is just me imagining stuff that might be possible in the future. For
> now it doesn't make sense to worry or think about this too much - we'll see
> what kind of ties between harmony and something like jakarta-commons (or
> whatever other part of the open source java space we're on about here) is
> possible as the issue comes up. 
> cheers!
> Leo


Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.

View raw message