18 Apr
2018
18 Apr
'18
6:43 p.m.
Hi devs,
On 04/18/2018 10:45 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
I think I prefer having the internal package closer to
the root (so that
it's easier to spot it) but I may have made the same "error" like
Guillaume
and Thomas in the past.
IMO, the current rule is incomplete as we do not take into account
submodules (which are the root cause of this conversation).
In the example given by Vincent, the package
org.xwiki.notifications.preferences.internal is part of the module
xwiki-platform-notifications-preferences : if we consider that the name
of the module is notification-preferences, then it's logical to put the
internal subpackage here.
Note that this is the same idea for org.xwiki.job.handler.internal,
which is in the submodule xwiki-platform-job-handler.
We then have to choose either to accept this format or totally discard
submodules.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> On Matrix/IRC, I’ve posted the following:
>
> "
> * Guillaume Delhumeau: BTW your naming is strange for the internal package
> * for ex: package org.xwiki.notifications.preferences.internal.email;
> * normally we put internal just after the main package part
> * ie.
> * org.xwiki.notifications.internal.*
> * and org.xwiki.notifications.* for public classes
> * see http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/CodeStyle/
> JavaCodeStyle/#HPackagenames
> * General rule is org.xwiki.(module name).internal.
> * I see thomas has done the same “error" for
> org.xwiki.job.handler.internal and org.xwiki.job.handler.internal.question
> . So maybe there's something to discuss/change
> * I guess we have a mix of both now so we should discuss it and adjust our
> rules if need be
> “
>
> So I think we don’t have all the same rules/understanding of the
> definition at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/CodeStyle/
> JavaCodeStyle/#HPackagenames
>
> I’d like to discuss with you to see what you prefer and adjust our rules
> so that it matches what we do in practice.
>
> Any take in this?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent