Impl package naming

[Brent Putman]

On 3/31/14 11:08 AM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> Something I've neglected to note, we have a lot of inconsistency in
> packaging naming between the IdP and OpenSAML modules when it comes to
> implementation classes. We put the "impl" part of the package name in
> different spots, which is kind of annoying.
>
> e.g.
>
> org.opensaml.saml.saml1.core.impl
>
> org.opensaml.saml.saml1.profile.impl
>
> vs.
>
> net.shibboleth.idp.saml.impl.profile.saml1

Yeah, I don't know what Chad did that in the new IdP modules.  OpenSAML
has historically always used the impl-on-the-end approach.  I agree it
would be nice if they were consistent.

> I have a preference for the OpenSAML naming, as it takes a package of APIs
> and adds impl to the end, which is kind of what you'd expect IMHO.


I personally prefer that also.

Off-hand I don't know how much in the IdP modules is doing it the other
way, but practically speaking I know there is a lot in OpenSAML that
would have to change if we were to shift it to the impl-first style. 
Including all the XMLObject class names in all the provider config
files, there's probably hundreds of those alone (although maybe Eclipse
can do that, it does have that option on rename refactoring to update
text files, etc, although I don't personally know how reliable it is).