Re: [wtp-dev] Convention for "internal" packages

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

My thoughts on this are that "internal"
in package names is old-school and no longer needed since OSGI and the
eclipse extensions makes it not necessary. It would still be ok to do,
for redundancy, but, not really required since we can use x-internal. When
starting with a new package at the beginning of a develop cycle, it is
fine to use 'internal' in the name, but I do not sure it is worth any risk
at all this late, since the same information can be conveyed and documented
using x-internal. 

I do think it's important to avoid 'provisional',
if it is not too disruptive to your clients/adopters at this point in the
2.0 cycle. In theory, we (WTP) should have no more 'provisional'. That
was a temporary thing, and 
in hindsight, not that useful (and,
more disruptive than expected). From here on out, new functionality that
is exposed for clients should be API, or not. We still need to 'evolve'
the existing provisional, but that'll be a long term process, going through
proper review, etc. 

I'd suggest opening a bugzilla to document
details of your proposed changes, and ideally provide changes to clients
for review in a temporary branch, and get some voice from the community
of adopters. After all, in the "cost/benefit" trade-offs, it
is them that would have to pay a cost now, for a potential benefit later.
 That is, at this late in the cycle, we should not be making any changes
_simply_ for naming convention purity. But, in the case of 'provisional',
it is likely a less expensive change to make now, than later. 

Thanks,

"Ian Trimble" <ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/10/2007 12:51 PM

Please respond to
"ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx" <ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx>; Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."        <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	[wtp-dev] Convention for "internal" packages

We're cleaning up our package names and declaring
API in the JSF Tools Project. We will be refactoring to remove "internal.provisional"
from our package names. Also, we have inherited some code that currently
does not include "internal" in the package name but we do not
consider it API. Is it enough to manipulate the bundle manifest to mark
as "x-internal" for these non-API packages, or should we also
be injecting "internal" into non-API package names? What is the
convention?
 
Thanks,
 - Ian (JSF Tools Project)
 
------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Trimble
JDeveloper Group
Oracle Corporation Canada Inc.
Office: (250) 954-0837
Email: ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.oracle.com
------------------------------------------------------------
This email may contain confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
please contact the sender and delete all copies.
 _______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev