On 8/3/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any reason why we can't use org.apache.shale for the package names still? I can't really think of a better package name off hand.
Using org.apache.shale.xxxxx would seem to create a false perception that the goodies were actually a formal part of the Shale project, and would contradict the project description claim in that regard. We should use "goodies" or "shalegoodies" or something like that. Sean Craig On 8/3/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/3/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm ok with shale-goodies as long as we can release artifacts as > > different versions, etc. I'm assuming that's the case. I think we're > > all curious about the google option so lets go ahead with it. We can > > always move it in a few months if it doesn't pan out. Right now > > there;s just shale-petstore and it wouldn't be the end of the world to > > lose the svn history if we had to move it. > > > I set up a "maven/trunk/master-pom" analogous to what we have in the Apache > repository ... you could set up shale-petstore/trunk to make it > independently branchable and so on. We could even set up a "current" > externals later. > > We'll have to think about the package names (and Maven artifact ids) here > ... I used "shale-goodies:shale-goodies:1-SNAPSHOT" for the initial master > pom, but haven't checked in any code yet. > > my gmail is sean.schofield > > > Added. > > Sean > > > > ps. Google is also doing something cool which is allowing you to host > > your domain email through them. There is a beta test going on and > > they accepted my application. Something to consider for folks who > > have their own domain for business purposes. > > > That is pretty cool. > > Craig > >
