[jcifs] Re: Package access classes, methods, etc.

[Michael B Allen]

Eric Glass said:
> Mike,
>
> I was wondering if you had any opinion on revising the access
> modifiers for some of the jCIFS classes and methods.  There's
> currently a lot of package classes, etc., which make it a bit
> difficult to extend without putting the external code in i.e. the
> "jcifs.smb" package.  Personally, I'm fairly "anti-package" (I don't
> find it to be a useful construct), but that's just me; I just wanted
> to get your thoughts.

Excellent question!

Actually I think the API access we have right now is quite good for
several reasons. First, it helps facilitate the license agreement.
Something like the SqlTransport you just posted is the kind of thing I
would like to see people reciprocate. Second, it supresses "feature
creep". If we keep the API "small" it will cause fewer problems for the
casual user but non-casual users like yourself can still make
sophisticated modifications. Consider the SqlTransport you submitted.
Conceptually I think it breaks the API conventions we have followed so far
because in theory it is just a named pipe transport and therefore should
use the named pipe API. If the named pipe API is not sophisticated enough
to support the target scenario we must determine why and make the
necessary adjustments in a generic way.

Mike