On 4/17/07, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley_at_sun.com> wrote:
>
>
> Personally (as may already be evident) I rather like the use of
> separate packages for distinct units of functionality but I'm not
> particularly opposed to merging all the SPIs into a single package -
> if we did so we may need to to revisit the decision if we re-
> introduce some of the other SPIs that were removed in this sketch.
> What do others think - one SPI package or three sub packages ?
As Ive said before I think decisions around the spi are premature. As a
general rule I favor separate packages for modular differences in
functionality (but I also dislike "anemic" packages--i.e., ones with no
classes in them) . This is purely for the reasons that navigating them is
easy and that it makes things easier for build profiles (test kits,
package-local util classes etc.).
However, Ive no real understanding of the 3 spi packages as proposed so I
can't make any intelligent comments beyond this. =)
> - as JAXB isn't part of JSE 5.0, it seems like we shouldn't have
> > JAXBRepresentation (with dependencies on javax.xml.bind package)
> > directly in
> > the API. I'm sure we can support JAXB without requiring such a
> > dependency in
> > the API.
> >
> Good point, that needs to be removed or made generic.
+1
Dhanji.