Community
Participate
Working Groups
I suggest that package org.eclipse.lyo.client.oslc.resources is splitted into several sub.packages: org.eclipse.lyo.client.oslc.resource.core org.eclipse.lyo.client.oslc.resource.cm org.eclipse.lyo.client.oslc.resource.qm Note that the suggestion also includes a change from pluraris to singular of the word resources.
I like the idea of subpackage split! Not sure why use a singular form. I try to avoid plural form in the class names but see no harm in using plural sparingly in the package names. Quick search got me on SO: http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/75919/should-package-names-be-singular-or-plural The main problem I have is breaking the compatibility in the library that is already not being used as often as we would like. So it's definitely not the first breaking change I want to introduce to this library.
A broader issue is not having pluggable domains for the client - rather its coupled to specific OSLC domains. Perhaps a better way to address this is to leave the current CM and QM resources where they are, and add a new library that is more open, generic and extensible. Another thought is that the interfaces for a domain should be defined in the domain package, and then reused in the client and the server and not duplicated.
