'package' and access from subpackages..

[Don]

Sergey Gromov wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley <kb3ctd2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Sergey Gromov" <snake.scaly at gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> Another approach is to have hierarchical packages, which sounds close to
>>> the concept of nested classes and C++ namespaces. So that inner packages
>>> have access to anything with package access in all outer packages. But
>>> how do the outer packages communicate with inner? Inner packages are
>>> required to have interfaces which are public for some outer packages but
>>> private for some more outer packages. I cannot see an easy solution
>>> here.
>> I was thinking that you would put the more generic stuff towards the top of 
>> the package hierarchy and the more specialized stuff towards the bottom, so 
>> that the generic stuff wouldn't actually have to access the specialized 
>> stuff.  I.e. you would declare interfaces in package.*, but you would 
>> implement them in package.impl.*. 
> 
> Yes, I'd organize packages that way, too. Now you call xml.parse(blah). 
> The xml.parse() wants to create an instance of 
> xml.concreteparser.Implementation. That requires Implementation in 
> xml.concreteparser to be visible to the xml package. So should 
> Implementation be public?

No. It should be 'package'.