The Author Online Book Forums are Moving

The Author Online Book Forums will soon redirect to Manning's liveBook and liveVideo. All book forum content will migrate to liveBook's discussion forum and all video forum content will migrate to liveVideo. Log in to liveBook or liveVideo with your Manning credentials to join the discussion!

Thank you for your engagement in the AoF over the years! We look forward to offering you a more enhanced forum experience.

deleplace (2) [Avatar] Offline
MEAP V04, ยง3.6.1 (p.72) states "PACKAGES SHOULD BE SMALL"

I understand it is desirable and intellectualy satisfactory to have small, focused, orthogonal packages.

On the other hand, the deliberately simplified dependency rules forbid cyclic dependencies and sometimes lead to merge related packages. This results is a small number of medium/large packages.

In this thread Andrew Gerrand throws a few catchphrases!topic/golang-nuts/8nwGtohyVtc
"A Go package typically contains a lot more than a Java or C++ class would"
"I don't see the point of separating code into multiple packages if they are not logically separate pieces of code"
"Sometimes packages need to be big"

My feeling so far is that it is an open debate, and the tradeoff between modularity and effective buildability should be a sensible case-by-case decision.

Could you maybe add a few authoritative guidelines for package size, and also the nice standard workarounds when compilation is difficult ?

Thanks in advance
Best regards
Bill Kennedy (69) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Packages : big or small ?
Excellent Assessment and reference. Thanks !!