commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [All] Convention for "courtesy" codes?
Date Mon, 12 Feb 2018 22:58:22 GMT
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:50:26 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2018-02-10, Gilles wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:08:12 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> If a Java package and artifact ID contain "internal" or "private" 
>>> in
>>> the
>>> name, that would be pretty clear.
>> Do you suggest that, say, the benchmarking codes in
>> "commons-rng-jmh" should be located in a top package
>> named "o.a.c.rng.jmh.internal"?
> Gary's response likely stems from me misunderstanding what you asked
> about. I overlooked you said "modules" and assumed you were talking
> about parts of an artifact which otherwise should evolve in a 
> backwards
> compatible way.
> If a whole artifact is not considered something that is there for 
> public
> consumption as an API then I'd just say so (inside the POM, in 
> javadocs,
> on the website ...) and not care for backwards compatibility at all.
> IMHO we don't need any rules for something like this, proper
> documentaton should be enough.

I'll then also assume that the layout of the maven project
can be chosen freely for those packages/modules.

For clarity's sake, in the case of "Commons RNG", I intend
to move all "non-library" codes to sub-modules of module

Any objections?


> Stefan

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message