> > Unfortunately the problem I'm having isn't what you think it is. My demo
> > class that references the "b" package is not in the "a" package, it's in the
> > "a.child" package, so it should be found by "a.*" regardless of whether that
> > pattern includes the "a" package.

> Try the new snapshot. I think it might fix this problem

> FWIW, I do think that "a.*" should include "a". I can't think of any

> > scenario where that wouldn't be what the developer wanted, but maybe I just
> > haven't thought about it enough. But let me reiterate that that's not
> > related to the bug I'm reporting here.

> I have not figured out how to address this yet. So a.* still will not detect
> a. I'll think about this this weekend.

> Thanks for your patience, Andrew.

> ~ Mike Nereson

> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Andrew Swan <andrew.i.s...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> > Hi Mike,

> > Unfortunately the problem I'm having isn't what you think it is. My demo
> > class that references the "b" package is not in the "a" package, it's in the
> > "a.child" package, so it should be found by "a.*" regardless of whether that
> > pattern includes the "a" package.

> > FWIW, I do think that "a.*" should include "a". I can't think of any
> > scenario where that wouldn't be what the developer wanted, but maybe I just
> > haven't thought about it enough. But let me reiterate that that's not
> > related to the bug I'm reporting here.

> > Cheers,

> > Andrew

> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Mike Nereson <mikenere...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

> >> Thanks for checking that out.

> >> The problem is that a.* is checking packages UNDER a. However, it is not
> >> checking package a. That is to say, it will check a.b, but not a

> >> So how do I address this... Should a.* match a? Should you have to
> >> explicitly define a topmost level package? Is this going to be a problem
> >> since java developers typically develop under a top level domain such as
> >> com. net. org. ect?

> >> I am not sure how to make a.* work. I don' think that a.* should include
> >> a.

> >> Ideas?

> >> ~ Mike Nereson

> >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Andrew Swan <andrew.i.s...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:

> >>> Hi Mike,

> >>> 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

> ...

> read more »