Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I should have time to look at this early this week.
>
>> 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?
>
Given that we're about to break backwards compatibility in
jersey-multipart anyway to implement the parameterized header stuff, I'm
not in much position to complain :-). But for my own work I'm
maintaining an internal branch (compatible with 1.0 of Jersey) until we
release this stuff in 1.1 or whatever.
> 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?
>
Sure. You want to go ahead and take an initial swipe at them,
consistent with your overall patterns?
> Paul.
>
Craig
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>