river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: River Musings
Date Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:04:42 GMT
One objective should be a really clear, and clearly articulated, 
distinction between public APIs and implementation.

I would like to see all implementation code marked in one of three ways:

non-public access

com.sun package name

package name with "impl" as one of the components.

Adding a public non-imple API is something that needs to be done very 
carefully, because it is difficult to undo.

On 8/30/2015 4:09 AM, Peter wrote:
> I finally had the chance to look through the org.apache.river name
> change work Dennis Reedy has done, it all looks very impressive, he's
> even taken the time to tidy up the qa suite. I haven't had time to run
> any tests or look at the jtreg test suite, I promise I'll make some time
> in the near future. Before we release this code there is an opportunity
> to tidy up the org.apache.river name space even further. In the Jini
> days, com.sun.jini.* was implementation code, it wasn't part of the Jini
> public API, should we now use org.apache.river.* for this purpose? There
> is some new public api, in org.apache.river.api.* and at the time new
> implementation code was being placed into org.apache.river.impl.* and
> now the com.sun.jini.* namespace has been moved to org.apache.river.*.
> Should we consider placing the new api in the net.jini.* namespace? It's
> worth looking at the javadoc as most of the new classes are package
> private. There are also discovery constraints in the implementation
> namespace that should be moved into the public api in my opinion, thoughts?

View raw message