For class names, I'm thinking that: AdfFacesContext -> RequestContext, or maybe LifecycleContext AdfRenderingContext -> RenderingContext (the latter is currently a private-ish internal class, but I think we should make it public at some point.)
I also wish we could keep the "internal" part of the package; I'd rather have: org.apache.myfacesinternal.trinidad org.apache.myfaces.trinidadinternal ... than: org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.internal Doing it "without the dot" forces all the internal code into an entirely different directory structure, which is handy for things like doc + inclusion rules - you don't have to specify exclusion rules, just inclusion. -- Adam On 7/20/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ADF-FACES-API > package > from > org.apache.myfaces.adf.** > > to > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.** > > ADF-FACES-IMPL > package > from > org.apache.myfaces.adfinternal.** > > to > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.internal.** > (note trinidad DOT internal) Since nobody seams to have a problem with the package suggestion, I think we should move on on this task, ok ? o.a.m.trinidad is also fine. Tobago does the same. they use also the myfaces specific namespace. Only tomahawk doesn't :) org.apache.myfaces.custom but that is from ooooooooold days. Hard to change :) > More interesting are class names like AdfFacesContext. > Naming them TrinidadContext might not a good solution. > Note: This class is *not* extending FacesContext. > > ExternalContext might be a good name... > but... as we all know, this is already taken :) > > Any ideas? > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > further stuff: > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
