incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew Jaquith" <andrew.r.jaqu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Vote requested: package renaming
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:33:20 GMT
> If this is done, JCR work will halt.  I am already in deep trouble
> with merges and I don't want any more problems.

Ok. How stable is your ongoing JCR work? For what it's worth, I merged
my Stripes branch with trunk continually for a year and a half. The
solution I came up with, as you know, was to bend over backwards to
break as little as possible.

I herewith withdraw Item #1.

> We need to design new interfaces for some classes, such as WikiEngine,
> instead of just blindly changing them into interfaces.
>
> However, I agree with the sentiment of refactoring stuff into
> interfaces, I just disagree with the idea of "just turn them into
> interfaces".  If this is not your intention, the proposal is drafted
> wrong and needs to be rewritten and revoted on.

My + 1 vote implied careful consideration to what makes it into the
interfaces, and what does not. Nothing in Item #2 states "blind"
refactoring. I agree that this should be done with care, and I stated
that in the JIRA thread. If you would like to re-draft item #2, please
feel free.

> We should be debating about each method whether it should be included
> or excluded, not about where it should be (which is largely hidden by
> the IDE anyway).

Agreed, but we wouldn't be debating about "where it should be" if the
new .api package didn't exist.

>
> +1.  I think this is absolutely mandatory, if we want to have stable
> interfaces.

I do not agree that it is "absolutely mandatory." Interfaces *should*
be stable -- that's a tenet of good Java style. If we design
interfaces carefully (as we both agree we should), why create a whole
new package tree? It's redundant and inelegant.

I *would* favor creating a separate API package tree if we could name
it something *really different*, like keeping com.ecyrd.jspwiki -- but
that is not an option for us. So the next best option, IMO, is to keep
everything in the same tree, just like we've always done.

>
> Why did you call a vote if you were going to veto it anyway?
>

To get a sense from the group. You and I have expressed our opinions
fairly clearly already. It's time to hear from everyone else.

Mime
View raw message