I am +1 to org.apache.wsif.* +1 to xml-wsif until there is a ws-axis and ws-wsif
I don't like the idea of putting wsif under the Axis name. -- Tom Jordahl Macromedia -----Original Message----- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Paul Fremantle Subject: Re: WSIF proposal Hi Dims, I agree we don't have enough to create a WS project yet. Why not just create new projects under XML until that condition is met? So I'd vote for xml-wsif and org.apache.wsif.*. I agree with Dug that consistency is important. I'm planning on working on the WSDL validator this summer with some volunteers I've picked up here in Sri Lanka. org.apache.axis.wsdl just makes no sense to me. Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Davanum Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Fremantle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:32 PM Subject: Re: WSIF proposal > Paul, > > Here's an excerpt from Dug's email: > >> "If it has its own cvs tree then it seems odd to have "axis" in the name. > >> It doesn't really matter much to me as long as the names are consistent, > >> either they both have "axis" or neither do. > >> -Dug" > > I agree with Dug's view that we need to be consistent. Since WebServices story will not happen > overnight...My personal view is that we can drop axis from the package name when it happens. > > Thanks, > dims > > --- Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dims > > > > If we are going to move to an overall WebServices story, I'd rather not name > > the package org.apache.axis.wsif.* > > > > Apart from the length :-) I'd prefer that we kept a simple package name. > > > > Paul > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Davanum Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:00 PM > > Subject: Re: WSIF proposal > > > > > > > Sanjiva, > > > > > > I agree that Web Services needs its own top level project. But we don't > > have enough "stuff" to do > > > so. IMHO we need more initiatives targeting various portions of the Web > > Services protocol stack > > > before we can do so. Using Axis as an incubator is a step in that > > direction. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > dims > > > > > > --- Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > What do you think? I proposed xml-axis-wsif, because I know that > > there is > > > > > some view of Axis as "brand" for apache web services. WSIF isn't > > really an > > > > > > > > I don't agree that Axis is a brand for Apache Web services! Axis > > > > as created as the Apache SOAP replacement project and I continue to > > > > support it as the next gen Apache SOAP implementation. > > > > > > > > I don't think it would make any sense to say that all Apache Web > > > > services things are named org.apache.axis.<stuff>. > > > > > > > > I agree with Sam that Web services needs its own top level project. XML > > > > is very much a part of Web services, as is a bunch of stuff from > > Jakarta. > > > > > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > Davanum Srinivas - http://xml.apache.org/~dims/ > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience > > > http://launch.yahoo.com > > > > > ===== > Davanum Srinivas - http://xml.apache.org/~dims/ > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience > http://launch.yahoo.com
