Re: Public vs internal APIs
От | Markus KARG |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Public vs internal APIs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 002901d0c567$c6f9fe00$54edfa00$@eu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Public vs internal APIs (Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Public vs internal APIs
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Actually I would go with a really flat structure, so we can simply use "default" and "public" visibility of classes to distinguishbetween API and implementation. If more structure is wanted, we could use "org.postgresql" vs. "org.postgresql.internal"to make it more clear which classes are private and which are published. Unfortunately Java has no "friends" declaration. :-( -----Original Message----- From: Vladimir Sitnikov [mailto:sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 23. Juli 2015 18:35 To: Markus KARG Cc: List Subject: Re: [JDBC] Public vs internal APIs > instead restructuring the package hierarchy, as this is was it was invented for originally. package-private is not enough. Java9 will have modules for that, however we would have to live with java8 for a while. Which package would you suggest for org.postgresql.util.LruCache? Vladimir
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: