A long long time ago was a discussion about the long package names, so it was decided that instead of o.a.avalon.excalibur, the shorter o.a.excalibur should be used. All new classes/packages should use the short version.
Carsten > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:14 AM > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: Refactoring of Excalibur XMLUtil > > > > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> Carsten > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Jeff Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>> > >>> > >>> On this subject, I see that while some classes were moved from > >>> org.apache.avalon.excalibur to org.apache.excalibur, others weren't: > >>> > > > > > > I certainly have missed the discussion about this, but why has the > > "excalibur" package moved at the same level as "avalon" ? > > I missed it too. > > Given that we are reorganizing into Framework-Contaier-Components, does > it still make sense to have an o.a.excalibur package? > > What should we name packages that we will be creating from now on? > > -- > Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - verba volant, scripta manent - > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
