+1 for org.eclipse.persistence.<component>.xsd
----- Original Message -----
From: neil.hauge@xxxxxxxxxx
To: eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2011 1:21:37 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: 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:
org.eclipse.persistence.<component>
or
org.eclipse.persistence.<component>.xsd
Neil
On 2/7/2011 11:35 AM, Eric Gwin wrote:
Regarding core circular dependency issue.... For full history see:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=336179
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
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 is
committed to developing practices and products that help
protect the environment
_______________________________________________
eclipselink-dev mailing list
eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
