Re: Giving a package specification access to the private types of another package

[Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org>]

Grein, Christoph wrote:
>>Perfect? That's a bit strong. It's a good design, but as given, I think 
>>that putting Foobar in B (perhaps with "is separate") is as good.
> 
> I beg to differ. For this tiny example, you're right. But IIRC, the OP said that 
> his package B.A was quite big and held a big part of the implementation stuff of 
> B. Then child packages are the "perfect" design because you can split one big 
> body (B) is several smaller children dedicated to specific subproblems.

My recollection is that Foobar was large and A existed simply to make 
Foobar separate from B, in which case putting Foobar in B and making it 
separate still seems just as good. If it's A that's large and Foobar is 
only part of it, then a private package is probably better.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate."
Monty Python's the Meaning of Life