Hi,
sorry for reviving this thread so late, but I only now gained more
experience with
this package splitting.
Personally I don't like it too much. I partly understand the reason, but I
am not
sure if this religious package naming makes sense.
As already mentioned in this thread, there is th
2011/5/17 Hardy Ferentschik :
> Hi,
>
> sorry for reviving this thread so late, but I only now gained more
> experience with
> this package splitting.
>
> Personally I don't like it too much. I partly understand the reason, but I
> am not
> sure if this religious package naming makes sense.
>
> As
The use of annotations is an interesting idea. I had not considered that.
I'd also want the javadocs to accurately reflect this distinction. Are
annotations available to doclets? I am thinking perhaps not, based on
my knowledge of @Deprecated
On 05/17/2011 09:45 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 17:17:58 +0200, Steve Ebersole
wrote:
> I'd also want the javadocs to accurately reflect this distinction. Are
> annotations available to doclets?
I don't think so. On the other hand the annotation processor could produce
something
the doclet could then consume.
_
We discussed the notion of configuration that specifically targets
metadata building the last 2 meetings. But we still do not have an
answer. So here is my proposal: https://gist.github.com/976704
--
Steve Ebersole
http://hibernate.org
___
hiberna
The annotation approach is an idea that I like conceptually and that some
proposed (wo pushing it further so far).
That being said, my work on classes split has shown me that you need to work a
lot to get a decent split and a physical package makes it very clear that
things are screwed or not y
I expanded the proposals some more.
On 05/17/2011 10:34 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> We discussed the notion of configuration that specifically targets
> metadata building the last 2 meetings. But we still do not have an
> answer. So here is my proposal: https://gist.github.com/976704
>
>
--
Stev
