Re: Change JavaXPCOM interfaces package name?
"mica" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mozilla.devel.java |
|---|---|
| Organization | http://groups.google.com |
| Message-ID | <1161940980.636836.202400__8853.41340112991$1161941281$gmane$org@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> |
I have posted a refactoring script with instructions in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330256 (Comment 3) mica wrote: > Javier, can you create a "Eclipse Refactoring Script" for package name > change?? It's could be very useful for Eclipse 3.2 developers, the only > that we need to do is apply this script in our workspace. > > More information about this in " Create and apply refactoring scripts" > and " JAR file export with refactorings" sections in > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.2-200606291905/new_noteworthy/eclipse-news-part2.html > > Regards > > Artem Ananiev wrote: > > My opinion is that changing the package name to org.mozilla.interfaces > > is a good idea, however I should mention that this change would force > > all the developers using JavaXPCOM to change their projects if they want > > to use the newer versions of the library. > > > > Artem > > > > Javier Pedemonte wrote: > > > > > Currently, all of the generated Mozilla interfaces are put in the > > > package "org.mozilla.xpcom". In > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330256, I tried to come up > > > with a better solution. > > > > > > Ideally, the interfaces should their own package; as in > > > "org.mozilla.network", "org.mozilla.dom", "com.foo.bar" (as in a company > > > called Foo that wishes to release a Bar extension). Unfortunately, > > > while XPIDL (the Mozilla interface language) has support for > > > 'namespaces', xpidl (the tool for processing Mozilla interfaces) assumes > > > a flat namespace. So this solution is not viable at the moment. > > > > > > Instead, I propose changing the package name to the more generic > > > "org.mozilla.interfaces". That way, all the interfaces, including those > > > by a 3rd party, don't get lumped under 'xpcom'. The Mozilla class and > > > related classes would stay under "org.mozilla.xpcom". > > > > > > For those of you who have used JavaXPCOM, does this sound good? Please > > > let me know. > > > > > > > > > javier pedemonte > > > _______________________________________________ > > > dev-tech-java mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-java