From: okellogg@freenet.de (Oliver Kellogg)
Subject: Re: child packages and nested packages
Date: 29 Mar 2002 05:05:01 -0800
Date: 2002-03-29T13:05:01+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a6390b8.0203290505.2ec75321@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 6a6390b8.0203282130.2e4fe981@posting.google.com
Sergey Koshcheyev <serko84@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just a quick idea - maybe using "is separate" in some right places would
> solve it? Like having the spec of A.B.Impl inside A.B, and having the body
> separate.
That's definitely possible, but still only a workaround solution.
The real solution IMO is to permit nested packages as units that are
interchangeable with child packages in package hierarchies.
I.e. everywhere that a child package may appear, also a nested
package could appear.
It should be at the software archtiect's freedom how he chooses to
physically lay out a unit in the hierarchy - as a child package or as
a nested package.
Oliver Kellogg
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-29 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-23 15:02 child packages and nested packages Oliver Kellogg
2002-03-25 15:01 ` Ted Dennison
2002-03-25 19:26 ` Oliver Kellogg
2002-03-25 22:31 ` Stephen Leake
2002-04-23 21:44 ` Oliver Kellogg
2002-04-24 14:52 ` Oliver Kellogg
2002-03-26 14:21 ` Marin David Condic
2002-03-28 9:51 ` Oliver Kellogg
2002-03-28 14:49 ` Ted Dennison
2002-03-28 18:30 ` Oliver Kellogg
2002-03-28 22:13 ` Ted Dennison
2002-03-29 5:30 ` Oliver Kellogg
2002-03-29 11:59 ` Sergey Koshcheyev
2002-03-29 15:14 ` Ted Dennison
2002-03-29 13:05 ` Oliver Kellogg [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-03-04 5:37 Oliver Kellogg
2010-03-04 14:55 ` Admin - Do Not Email
2010-03-04 16:12 ` Adam Beneschan
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox