james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject [server.trunk] user-api and user-library package names
Date Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:59:28 GMT
user-api and user-library seems almost ok as modules, but I feel the 
packages are wrong.

Is this something concerning also other developers or it's me too much 
strict wrt packages/dependencies and this stuff?

we have these packages in user-api:
o.a.j.vut
o.a.j.api.user
o.a.j.services

then we have these in user-library:
o.a.j.core
o.a.j.management
o.a.j.security
o.a.j.services
o.a.j.userrepository
o.a.j.util
o.a.j.vut
o.a.j (for JamesMBean)


e.g:

1) o.a.j.security is only used by user-library in the whole tree and 
contains a single class. I'd like to move it to the generic "util-api" 
module or to move it in the same package of DefaultUser (as it is the 
only client for that class).

2) o.a.j.JamesMBean this is deprecated stuff, let's remove it, forever. 
We have much more/better management interfaces now.

3) the remaining packages should be refactored and moved to the 
org.apache.james.user subpackage, introducing more nesting between api 
and library and leaving space for functions to sub-package api/library 
packages.

4) after #3 I hope (and I'd like) to be able to support backward 
compatibility by using a function module (or the phoenix-deployment 
module as we'll need to "repackage" also functions later) having classes 
in the old bad package.

Stefano

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message