Description Mik Kersten 2003-10-20 02:41:40 EDT

The feature is described in the following aspectj-users conversation:

-------------

I agree with both of you that this feature of javac can be annoying.  I can 
never bring myself to write the code to enforce this rule (so ajc doesn't).  
However, we've gotten our fair share of bug reports complaining about legal 
behavior that was different from javac's.  We usually wind up "fixing" these 
in acknowledgement of javac's position as a de-facto standard.

This rule combined with the rule that externally visible classes must be in a 
file named ClassName.java makes it easy for compilers to find the correct 
source file for a given class name without doing any parsing.
This is very useful for javac's dependency-based compilation where you can 
point it at Main.java and have all dependencies compiled automatically.  It 
can also make implementing incremental compilation easier.

In AspectJ-1.2, we should add a -warn:packageMatchesDirectory option to go 
along with eclipse's other warning options like the one for unused local 
variables.  I'm afraid that the default behavior will probably be to match 
javac following the principle of least surprise.  However, I'm almost certain 
that this will be an option that can be disabled for those who find the rule 
silly.

-Jim

BTW - I've been exploring the csharp language and MS's tools are much more 
flexible about the relationship between file structure and namespaces.  I've 
found this to be very helpful in the early stages of a project where I often 
want all of my classes in a single file.  However, I've found that as a 
project grows I will break it up into the one class per file and one directory 
per package structure enforced by javac.
This is made easier by csharp's 'internal' modifier that roughly corresponds 
to "within my .jar file" rather than within my package.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: aspectj-users-admin@eclipse.org [mailto:aspectj-users- 
> admin@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Lendvai Attila
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 2:52 AM
> To: aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] ajc not enforcing package - directory 
> structure rule
> 
> :: > is it a feature or a bug that ajc does not complain if a
> :: > file is not in
> :: > a directory structure what it's package name defines?
> ::
> :: Feature in my view . There's no requirement that source
> :: files be stored in the same directory structure as their
> :: packages define. I find it very annoying when IDE's require this.
> 
> i kinda like it, too. btw, javac itself is the one who complains, not 
> only the ide's.
> 
> i would just like to know wether this feature will remain or will be 
> fixed, so i can have my long term package strategy...
> 
> i like package private stuff, but on the other hand i don't like 
> directories with houdreds of files.