> Thanks for all your hard work on this project.

> I managed to check out that snapshot from SVN and build it, and although
> wildcards seem to work in "violation" elements, they don't work for
> "package" elements. For example, I have a class that looks like this:

> package a.child;

> import b.B;

> public class Child {

>   private B bar;
> }

> I have this architecture rule:

>     <rule id="a-should-not-access-b">
>       <comment>Package "a" shouldn't use package "b"</comment>
>       <packages>
>         <package>a.*</package>
>       </packages>
>       <violations>
>         <violation>b</violation>
>       </violations>
>     </rule>

> I would expect this rule to fail, since my class in the "a.child" package
> depends on the "b" package, and the "a.child" package should have been
> detected by the "a.*" package wildcard. Changing the package pattern to
> "a..*" doesn't help. The rule only fails (correctly) when I explicitly
> declare the source package using "a.child". So this seems to indicate that
> wildcards aren't working in the "package" elements.

> Hope this helps,

> Andrew

> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Mike Nereson <mikenere...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>> Andrew, I finally got the wild card support in. You can use 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT
>> in the maven 2 repo to start using it now.

>> http://code.google.com/p/architecturerules/source/browse/maven2/com/s...

>> If you're using maven and our repo, just update your version to
>> 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.

>> I'd appreciate if you could try it out and give me any feedback.

>> I have not updated the documentation and won't do so until we make the
>> release (any day now?) but I am going to write a blog post about it at
>> 72miles.com/blog where I write all my architecture rules posts.

>> The basics are: you can use wildcards in the packages or violations.

>> .* matches ONE package deeper.
>> ..* matches one or more packages deeper.

>> So that com.seventytwomiles.project.dao.*
>> matches com.seventytwomiles.project.dao.hibernate
>> matches com.seventytwomiles.project.dao.ldap
>> does not match com.seventytwomiles.project.dao.hibernate.user

>> but com.seventytwomiles.project.dao..*
>> matches com.seventytwomiles.project.dao.hibernate
>> matches com.seventytwomiles.project.dao.ldap
>> matches com.seventytwomiles.project.dao.hibernate.user

>> Also supports internal wildcards

>> com.seventytwomiles..*.filter.*
>> matches com.seventytwomiles.project1.web.filter.security
>> matches com.seventytwomiles.project1.web.filter
>> does not match com.seventytwomiles.project1.web.filter.security.wsbecause .* (..* would match this)

>> Get it?

>> So, you've got internal or terminating wildcards, and you have .* or ..*
>> for a single package or many packages.

>> Enjoy. Thanks for your patience. I'll let you know when I get the blog
>> post up with more examples and explainations.

>> 2.1.0 release will be this week sometime or next weekend maybe.

>> ~ Mike Nereson

>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Mike Nereson <mikenere...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>> Andrew, and everyone, if you're up for it, can you help me to define the
>>> types of wild cards and then we can figure out what should be supported and
>>> what should not.

>>> Here is a list of what I have come up with:

>>> Terminating: com.company.*
>>> Starting: *.project.dao.UserDAO
>>> Middle: com.company.*.dao.UserDAO
>>> Class: com.company.project.dao.*DAO

>>> Are there more? Should the tool support them all? Does defining a
>>> violation using the class name  wildcard make the configuration more complex
>>> (harder to read and maintain?)

>>> I'd appreciate your feedback. Tell me whatever you're thinking on this.

>>> Thanks.

>>> ~ Mike Nereson

>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Mike Nereson <mikenere...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> Hi Andrew. Its temporary. Hopefully up today or tomorrow. Sorry about
>>>> that.

>>>> No progress on the wild cards. I am back on my computer though, so I
>>>> will see if I can start them this weekend.

>>>> Thanks for hanging in there with us.

>>>> ~ Mike Nereson

>>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Andrew Swan <andrew.i.s...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> Hi Mike,

>>>>> Just checking in to see how wildcards are going; I went to the web site
>>>>> but got a 404 error at this URL:

>>>>> http://www.72miles.com/architecturerules

>>>>> Is the site just down temporarily?

>>>>> Andrew

>>>>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Mike Nereson <mikenere...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> Andrew, I am glad to hear that. Mykola and I are the two developers on
>>>>>> Architecture Rules. He is working hard on the maven plugin. I would have
>>>>>> implemented the wild cards for you already if my main computer's motherboard
>>>>>> didn't crash about 2 months ago. As soon as I replace that part, I'll be
>>>>>> able to knock out that wild card support for you. I am really glad to hear
>>>>>> that you want to use it.

>>>>>> I really really appreciate the feedback. Once we get the wild cards
>>>>>> in, and you are using it, please don't hesitate to send us an update as to
>>>>>> how you are you using architecture rules, how well, or not well its working
>>>>>> for you, and any suggestions that you have to make it better.

>>>>>> Again, thanks.

>>>>>> ~ Mike

>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Andrew <andrew.i.s...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>> As further feedback, I'll be applying this promising tool to our
>>>>>>> flagship application's codebase as soon as wildcards are available.
>>>>>>> Any idea when this might be? I appreciate you are probably working
>>>>>>> solo on this project in your spare time, so I don't want to hassle
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> too much.

>>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>>> Andrew

>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 5:01 am, "Mike Nereson" <mikenere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Sakke, I can't wait to finish implementing wild card support so
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> > you can test it for us ( :

>>>>>>> > Again, thanks for the feedback, for sticking with us, and for
>>>>>>> > reaffirming the need for wild card support.

>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > ~ Mike Nereson

>>>>>>> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Sakke Wiik <sakke.w...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>> > >  I agree with Andrew. We're currently not using this tools
>>>>>>> because it's
>>>>>>> > >  too complex without package wildcards. More info in my previous
>>>>>>> post

>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/architecture-rules-users/browse_frm/th.
>>>>>>> ..

>>>>>>> > >  cheers,
>>>>>>> > >  Sakke Wiik

>>>>>>> > >  On Apr 22, 4:12 pm, "Mike Nereson" <mikenere...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > >  > Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. I can appreciate your
>>>>>>> example.

>>>>>>> > >  > The whole reason for this project was to create a clean and
>>>>>>> simple,
>>>>>>> > >  > easy to read and easy to maintain interface to JDepend's
>>>>>>> ability to
>>>>>>> > >  > assert dependency rules. I think, based on your example, that
>>>>>>> we need
>>>>>>> > >  > to implement support for terminating wildcards for both
>>>>>>> packages and
>>>>>>> > >  > violations.

>>>>>>> > >  > --
>>>>>>> > >  > ~ Mike Nereson

>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ~ Mike Nereson