On 12/12/12 1:41 PM, Arun Gupta wrote:
> Danny,
>
> cil
>>> IMHO the names are intuitive and its only 5 classes. I'd rather keep
>>> a flat structure with everything in javax.websocket.* package.
>> OK. Well we are balancing the need not to require server API classes
>> for rich clients, which really pulls us in the direction of needing a
>> separate package to make the separation between the models clean.
> Do you expect two separate JARs for client and server or rich clients
> to extract the required classes out of a single JAR ?
Hey Arun,
I should think it would be clearest if we produced two separate JARs -
one for rich clients with only the javax.websocket.* package in, and one
for servers with both packages in. But I haven't looked at how other
specs manage this yet, so there may be reasons to do it differently.
What do you think ?
I'm going to track it in:
http://java.net/jira/browse/WEBSOCKET_SPEC-72
- Danny
>
> Arun
>>
>> We may well have more server specific classes in future releases too !
>>
>> - Danny
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> http://twitter.com/arungupta
> http://blogs.oracle.com/arungupta
--
<http://www.oracle.com> *Danny Coward *
Java EE
Oracle Corporation