+1 Vincent Massol wrote:

I think it would be a good idea to standardize on package naming. I've seen Jerome's commit for the new invitation manager plugin and this prompted me to send this email.

I propose the following:

* org.xwiki.<module name>.* : user public APIs * org.xwiki.<module name>.internal.* : non user public classes

- This means no "impl" package (which IMO doesn't mean much since it doesn't say if it's public or not). - This also means no "api" package (which IMO is not necessary since it should be the default and makes it more complex to use). - I also don't think we need a "spi" package since we have components.

I'm also proposing to generally follow the rules defined here: http://www.eclipse.org/articles/article.php?file=Article-API-Use/index.html (see also http://jakarta.apache.org/cactus/participating/apis.html)

Here's my +1

-- Artem Melentyev

+1 On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

I think it would be a good idea to standardize on package naming. I've seen Jerome's commit for the new invitation manager plugin and this prompted me to send this email.

I propose the following:

* org.xwiki.<module name>.* : user public APIs * org.xwiki.<module name>.internal.* : non user public classes

- This means no "impl" package (which IMO doesn't mean much since it doesn't say if it's public or not). - This also means no "api" package (which IMO is not necessary since it should be the default and makes it more complex to use). - I also don't think we need a "spi" package since we have components.

I'm also proposing to generally follow the rules defined here: http://www.eclipse.org/articles/article.php?file=Article-API-Use/index.html (see also http://jakarta.apache.org/cactus/participating/apis.html)

Here's my +1

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Thomas Mortagne