Mailing-List: contact jspwiki-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jspwiki-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: <1297457809.1229880584294.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:29:44 -0800 (PST)
From: "Janne Jalkanen (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: jspwiki-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (JSPWIKI-38) Rename packages to
 "org.apache.jspwiki"
In-Reply-To: <13380135.1195162423024.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-38?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12658402#action_12658402 ] 

Janne Jalkanen commented on JSPWIKI-38:
---------------------------------------

I disagree. I personally hate the ".spi" -paradigm, since it results in a situation where pretty much everything is a mess and could or could not be stable.  It also makes it very, very complicated to figure out the API.  And you never quite know exactly which APIs you are supposed to trust on, since we've got also a bunch of interfaces which might or might not be stable.  We do need interfaces for our own abstractions without revealing them to the developer too, and if we say that interfaces are stable, then well, then we'll end up doing a lot of casting.

Putting everything in a single package which we agree to be stable makes it clear for everyone what we can and cannot do with it.  It is not necessarily clear to the developer which JAR file his class comes from, so he might be surprised to find out that half of the interfaces he is coding on just are not reliable.  We can, of course, put them in a separate source directory as well to ease management, but I would still keep them in the dedicated package.  In addition, the dedicated package allows separate version numbering tracking for API and the core code.

I also dislike the fact that we've got stuff in the "root" directory (which quite a few people have also pointed out on the mailing lists) - it's really just a collection of miscallaneous classes about which we don't know where to put them.  I would greatly prefer if they were moved into a ".core" package to signify what they really mean.  This is quite commonly done in large projects.

It is most definitely not an abstraction; they're the same interface classes, but in a different package.  Abstraction implies layering, which is not true.

There is nothing very complicated in renaming the packages, so making it easier is not a very strong argument.

> Rename packages to "org.apache.jspwiki"
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JSPWIKI-38
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-38
>             Project: JSPWiki
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Janne Jalkanen
>            Assignee: Janne Jalkanen
>             Fix For: 3.0
>
>


-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.