Re: [Nxtcommand-developers] Making Icommand ready for different NXTCOMMimplementations

[Brian B. <bba...@mt...>]

> We should separate API (for end users) from implementation.
>
> At this moment from the icommand.nxtcomm package the NXTCommand class is
> part of the API (method close()).
>
> package icommand.nxtcomm should NOT be part of the API
>
> Proposal:
>
> Make an interface NXTCommand in the package icommand.platform.nxt
> with open() and close() methods.

Should we just call it NXT in keeping with the other physical objects 
(Motor, Speaker, etc...) - On second thought, see below.

> Change access modifiers in icommand.nxtcomm to package (= no access
> modifier) as much as possible to prohibit access by end users.
>
> In the distribution Javadoc of package icommand.nxtcomm will not be
> included, since it is no longer part of the API.

I agree with that. End users won't be using that.

> Puttng the NXTComm interface in package 'icommand' would even be better.
> I need  this interface to support multiple implementations.
>
> Then I do not need an Interface NXTCommand.
>
> This would however mean a "bigger" change in the API.
>
> NXTComm.open() and NXTComm.close() instead of NXTCommand.close()

That's fine. Makes more sense really, since you are opening/closing the 
communications link.

- Brian