2010/1/29 David Jencks <[email protected]> > I think "j2eeType" in object names and abstract names mapped to object > names is a literal specified in jsr77 so we shouldn't change it. > OK, I see..
> I'd be OK with javaee or ee in package names as long as we are sure it > won't disrupt anyones ongoing development. So if you want to do this please > figure out all the places that will change and make sure no one is working > on them. > OK, I will open a jira and provide a patch first. Thanks -Rex > > Since this is a non-functional change I tend to consider it less important > than getting all of the 2.2 functionality working in 3.0 and getting all of > aries functionality integrated. However, it would be nice to have more up > to date names. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Jan 29, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Jack Cai wrote: > > I remember that "jee" is not a good abbreviation. So maybe "javaee" or > "ee". > > -Jack > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Shawn Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good idea if following concerns are addressed: >> >> 1, This might break some user's existing deployment plan. >> 2, Doc and Example need update as well after such a change. >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Rex Wang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> hi, >>> >>> I think it is a good time to stop calling "j2ee" in our new Geronimo. >>> There are a lot of places using this term, such as plugin project names, >>> artifact names, "j2eeType"... >>> So which one is more appropriate, javaee or jee? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Lei Wang (Rex) >>> rwonly AT apache.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Shawn >> > > > -- Lei Wang (Rex) rwonly AT apache.org
