Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipselink-dev] Opinions please... (especially from leads)

Generally speaking, packages need to be qualified, especially in the OSGi world.  In addition, component should come first (after project root) as a qualifier.  So I would suggest:




On 2/7/2011 11:35 AM, Eric Gwin wrote:
Regarding core circular dependency issue.... For full history see:

The basic question I'm trying to answer is: "Which package structure makes more sense?"
We have a proposal to move the component specific XSDs from "xsd/" in multiple bundles (which creates a split package) to xsd/<component>
We also currently have some xsd files residing in org/eclipse/persistence/<component> as well as the xsd/ package.

Which makes more sense? o/e/p/component or xsd/component

I can see potential advantages to both, (o.e.p.component is probably safer, but xsd.component is probably more intuative/clear) but am wondering if there are strong opinions out there either way.

Eric Gwin | Senior Software Developer
Phone: +613 288 4622 | | Fax: +613 2382818 | | Mobile: +613 8582347
Oracle Java Server Technologies
ORACLE Canada | 45 O'Connor St., Ottawa, Ontario | K1P 6L2

              Oracle Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

_______________________________________________ eclipselink-dev mailing list eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top