On 4/19/07, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Querna wrote: > [snip] > I have mixed feelings about embedding vendor names in our filenames, or > API names. (gdata vs google vs some-generic-standard-paths-name) > Yes, that is a concern. Is there an alternative naming approach that would work better? I honestly do not know.
Sure, you don't have abdera-google.jar, you have abdera-ext-gdata.jar (the name of the spec, which theoretically anyone could use, not just google), you don't have abdera-ibm.jar or abdera-lotus.jar, you have abdera-ext-name-of-lotus-extensions.jar, etc.
> But, otherwise, I think it generally makes sense, as long as the vendor > is good about publishing how their extension works in a publicly > accessible document. > We can make a stable, publicly accessible document a minimum requirement for allowing any vendor-specific extension code into the project.
+1 Note, that it's certainly a requirement, but it's not sufficient. If the spec was licensed under icky terms (like keeping other people from implementing servers that use that protocol, for example), that would be a show stopper. I suspect this will need to be a case by case sort of thing. -garrett
