On Nov 7, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Below are three proposals for package renaming, in order of
>> disruption (first least disruptive, last most disruptive):
>>
>> - Proposal 1: ensure that each module has unique package names.
>> Thus packages can be sealed.
>> Targeted renaming.
>>
>> - Proposal 2: rename jersey-core and jersey-server.
>>
>> - Proposal 3: rename jersey-core, jersey-server, jersey-client,
>> spring, jersey-json.
>>
>> All of the proposals would rename the impl packages to be
>> consistent (but these should not be depended upon).
>>
>> I am leaning towards proposal 1 as i really want to minimize
>> breakage. But how about a vote? What do you want?
>>
> Although it took me a while to get used to the
> com.sun.jersey.api.* / com.sun.jersey.impl.* split, I must confess
> that I currently like them. It is crystal clear which classes are
> intended for use, and which ones should be hidden -- as well as
> making it easy to avoid javadocing the impl classes as we currently
> do.
>
I managed to achieve proposal 1, slightly differently with i presume
less disruption that i proposed, instead the jersey-
core:com.sun.jersey.api package was removed and classes have be moved
to other areas. I am expecting that those classes are less commonly
used that classes in the previously equivalent package in jersey-server.
> That said, if we want to change I'd prefer proposal 3 -- if you're
> using jersey-client, you're also potentially using jersey-core and
> jersey-multipart, and it would be nice if the package naming
> conventions were consistent.
Agreed. I am still concerned about breaking changes, but i presume you
don't mind having to update your code in this respect?
There has not been enough feedback to make me comfortable making such
a change. But can i think we can from now on be consistent. Can we
change the jersey-multipart package names as they were only introduced
for 1.0.1?
Paul.