31 Dec
2018
31 Dec
'18
11:19 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 8:12 PM Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
To progress on this topic, I’m trying to summarize the options we have since it’s still
not clear in my mind.
Option 1: Internal package after the 1st package
========
Class FQN example:
* org.xwiki.<package1>.internal.<package2>.<package3>.MyInternalClass
Pros:
* Easy to find all internal code for a given module (they’re all grouped together)
* Cons: ?
Devs:
* Vincent
* Marius
Option 2: Internal package at any level in the package hierarchy
========
Package examples:
* org.xwiki.<package1>.internal.<package2>.<package3>.MyInternalClass
* org.xwiki.<package1>.<package2>.internal.<package3>.MyInternalClass
* org.xwiki.<package1>.<package2>.<package3>.internal.MyInternalClass
Pros:
* ?
Cons:
* Internal code scattered in more packages.
* No consistency. Some devs will use
org.xwiki.<package1>.internal.<package2>.<package3>.MyInternalClass when
others will use
org.xwiki.<package1>.<package2>.internal.<package3>.MyInternalClass and
yet others will use
org.xwiki.<package1>.<package2>.<package3>.internal.MyInternalClass
Devs:
* Thomas
* Edy
* Sergiu
* Guillaume
I did not suggested to randomly choose the package based on the
programmer mood which seems to be what you understood. What I proposed
is pretty much the same as Option1 but the difference is that where
you define what's between "org.xwiki" and "internal" based on the
top
level module only I would prefer to use the whole hierarchy. One of
the goals being to have all the classes of the same module located in
the same base package instead of have two very different hierarchies.
So for example in your version, the module xwiki-rendering-macro-box
looks like this (what we have currently):
org.xwiki.rendering.internal.macro.box.DefaultBoxMacro
org.xwiki.rendering.macro.box.AbstractBoxMacro
org.xwiki.rendering.macro.box.BoxMacroParameters
and mine would be more like this:
org.xwiki.rendering.macro.box.AbstractBoxMacro
org.xwiki.rendering.macro.box.BoxMacroParameters
org.xwiki.rendering.macro.box.internal.DefaultBoxMacro
With this version everything related to the box macro is located under
org.xwiki.rendering.macro.box.**. In short everything which is part of
a specific domain or subdomain important enough to deserve its own sub
hierarchy has a dedicated base package for public package right now
and there is no reason for related internal classes end up in a
different hierarchy.
Of course the idea is not to include in the hierarchy modules
separated for very technical reasons (xwiki-platform-core, *-api,
*-default, etc.) like we currently do for public packages.
Conclusion
=========
@Thomas, Edy, Guillaume, Sergiu: could you confirm that you’re in favor of option 2? If
so could you aslo explain the Pros of it and the Cons you see for option 1. Right now I
see more pros for Option 1. But maybe I misunderstood what you’re proposing. Maybe you’re
suggesting an option 3, based on the Maven module names?
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
On 16 Apr 2018, at 18:28, 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/#HPac…
* 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/#HPac…
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