harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Testing
Date Mon, 01 May 2006 20:21:30 GMT
Ok - so this is an aspect of modularization, rather than some deranged 
bending of package implementation?  :D

So if a "module" has public packages A, B and C would it be :

org.apache.harmony.module.A
org.apache.harmony.module.B
org.apache.harmony.module.C
org.apache.harmony.module.internal

not

org.apache.harmony.module.A
org.apache.harmony.module.A.internal
org.apache.harmony.module.B
org.apache.harmony.module.B.internal
org.apache.harmony.module.C
org.apache.harmony.module.C.internal


geir


Tim Ellison wrote:
> '.internal.' is used to denote packages containing types that are wholly
> the business of a particular module; whereas non-internal packages
> contain types that can be called from other modules (e.g. utilities) and
> are expected to be stable.
> 
> In OSGi speak, we will export all packages that are *not* marked
> '.internal.', and all packages that are marked as '.internal.' will not
> be exported.
> 
> The naming convention is simply our convention to identify
> internal-APIs, it is not required by OSGi/Eclipse/...
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> 
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>> Oliver Deakin wrote:
>>> George Harley wrote:
>>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>> Of course, the text module has only "implementation-independent tests
>>>> that designed to be run from classpath". For modules that have got
>>>> implementation-specific tests then I suppose we could use something
>>>> like "org.apache.harmony.[module].tests.impl.[package under test]" or
>>>> "org.apache.harmony.[module].tests.internal.[package under test]"
>>>> etc. I've got no preference.
>>> I think impl is preferable over internal here, as we already use
>>> internal in our implementation package names to indicate classes
>>> totally internal to that bundle. To also use internal to label tests
>>> that are implementation specific may cause confusion.
>> I think the whole 'internal' thing is just awful IMO. (Man, it feels
>> good to stay that...)
>>
>> Why do we need it?  Eclipse?  OSGi?
>>
>> Isn't it pre-supposing a packaging system in the source code structur?
>> (one that I think is pretty unnatural for java programmers....)
>>
>> I'm 100% behind offering the Harmony classlibs packaged for OSGi, but
>> I'm 100% against assuming it's the only way to go...
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message