Home   Info   DevZone   Wiki   UsersWeb  |  MainWeb  |  InfoWeb  |  DevZoneWeb  |  SupportWeb
[ CommentOnPackages ] [ not logged in ] [ Web: Imported ] goto:  options [ get info on or edit ] [ login or new user ] [ list of topics, hubs & nodes, or recent changes ]

Recipe

Objections org.jos.apps.*

Perhaps org.jos.apps.freegp should be moved to either org.jos.apps.security.freegp or org.jos.security.apps.freegp or just org.jos.security.freegp?

I feel we should have a good, strong heirarchy rather than lumping all classes that are generally related into a general package. For instance, putting ALL apps into org.jos.apps would be a BAD THING. :-)

--MasonZhwiti

Hmm, the idea is to keep all apps in the org.jos.apps.* package. I did this for the end-users. One can now simply enumerate the entries in org.jos.apps.* and obtain a list of applications. I hope that you agree with me that having the applications scattered all over the hierarchy is an even worse thing ;)

org.jos.security.* is meant to be a library only package. So the only alternative to org.jos.apps.freegp would be org.jos.apps.security.freegp. However I don't think that's a good idea because there will only be a single FreeGP and we should keep the apps subtree as flat as possible...

The apps package is meant to keep things easier for users of the OS. All JOS applications can be found there.

Btw, server applications go into org.jos.servers.*...

Note that we will never really have name collisions here because there's no need to write a new application with the same name when there's the possibility to rewrite it (after all, that's what the source stuff is for). It would be different if there were no source.

-- JeroenVanGelderen

In general, I think that the package names should be singular, since they'll seem strange once subpackages are added. For example: org.jos.apps.server.WebServer terminates in a singular entity: the WebServer package. So I think these higher-level packages should have singular names.

-- MasonZhwiti (Agree -- JeroenVanGelderen )

I think that org.jos.apps.* should be meant for only JOS applications. It was implied above that it is for any application, and that scattering applications around the heirarchy is a bad thing. I agree that it is a bad thing. However, we must be careful not to make a place which people can put their applications which are not part of JOS into. If we can easily check out what applications we have available by scanning a package, then we might be tempting people to put new packages inside org.jos.apps. Just thinking aloud. -- MichaelFried

Well, the idea is to prevent JOS apps from popping up just everywhere in the package hierarchy. It's only meant for JOS apps. -- JeroenVanGelderen

Objections org.jos.servers.*

The difference between apps and servers is that the former are generally used by anyone and the latter only by SysComs...

So the answer is no (and a bit yes). I didn't do that because of 2 reasons:

• I felt it would unnecessarily (I HATE that word ;) deepen the hierarchy.
• I thought it was a good idea to shield normal users from any server applications.

Objections org.jos.joslf.*

Agree -- JeroenVanGelderen

General comments

Hmm, see above, no subheadings please... --JeroenVanGelderen

It might help if we adapt WikiClone to automatically link text that begins with "org.jos." so we can more easily link packages like we do with WikiWords.

P.S. Feel free to delete my text here when you've read it or move it somewhere else. I wasn't sure where to put this info.

--MasonZhwiti

This would make the most sense. CavelleBenjamin

Content of these pages are owned and copyrighted by the poster.
Hosted by: