Danny,
I think producing two formal JARs would make sense. I don't know if it
would break the JCP rules in any sense. Also, don't know if there are
any precedence for that.
I'm watching the issue and will track it there.
Arun
On 12/12/12 1:49 PM, Danny Coward wrote:
> 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
>
--
http://twitter.com/arungupta
http://blogs.oracle.com/arungupta