Re: [picocontainer-dev] package renaming

Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Paul Hammant wrote:
> 
>> I cursed Pico1 (against the wisdom of many) with 'defaults' and
>> 'alternatives'.
> 
> Hehehehe ... glad that they'll go away.

IMO, gems is more 'sane' in its package structure.
So, adapters go in a package called ... ehm, adapters, etc...
would could have a containers package holding different impls of PC.

>> 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.

+1



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email