#2 looks for logic for me. Regards JB -----Original Message----- From: Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:29:11 To: <dev@camel.apache.org> Reply-To: dev@camel.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] The future of camel-extra
Now that 2.6.0 is out, I planned to give camel-extra a bit more attention. There are some changes we need to make to camel-extra and I raised an issue about it a while ago and added one more comment: http://code.google.com/p/camel-extra/issues/detail?id=22 {quote} The camel-extra project is an independent project, not affiliated with the ASF. As such it is not managed by the Camel PMC, but by individuals who are heavily involved with Camel and some are on the Camel PMC. The camel-extra project misuses org.apache.camel as a package name and that should be changed asap. That said, the ASF started no long ago "apache extras" [1] to accelerate innovation on code associated with ASF projects, which is still at google code. I see two options: 1. We keep camel-extra here, we change the groupId and package to something like com.googlecode.camel.extra. 2. We move the project to apache extras and change the groupId and package to org.apachextras.camel [2] Thoughts? [1] http://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_launches [2] http://www.whois.net/whois/apachextras.org {quote} I would prefer option #2. This will also help with issue #21 and allow us to publish the artifacts in the central maven repo. Hadrian
