Re: [picocontainer-dev] package renaming
Jörg Schaible <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.picocontainer.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Paul Hammant wrote:
> I cursed Pico1 (against the wisdom of many) with 'defaults' and
> 'alternatives'.
Hehehehe ... glad that they'll go away.
> What package names should we end up with, and what should move where?
The old DPC tried too much. On one hand we tried to set it up, how we
thought Pico should be used and on the other hand we tried to make it so
flexible that you could change almost anything. So my advice is: Split it
up!
Create an abstract PC implementation that provides the flexibility and
derive from it the specialized, but now unflexible container and name it
properly. Now every can have a look why the container is setup in this
special way and create easily an own one, if the one we deliver (or the
ones we deliver) does not match any of the needs.
> Also, should we be making some of the internal implementation of Pico
> inner classes (static, anon or otherwise) ?
Which part did you have in mind in special?
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email