Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
What would Spring do if the have a rewrite that _might_ become Spring
4.0 but they don't know yet?
Ok, I can't read their minds, but it's easier for them as they already
have functional names, So a 4.0 for them is just re-using the right
functional names, adding some, dropping others perhaps. (Just speculating)
Cocoon 2.2 already uses cocoon-pipeline-api-1.0.0,
cocoon-sitemap-api-1.0.0., etc.
What concrete name and version number should we use for what we call
corona-pipeline now? cocoon-pipeline-1.0.0 or cocoon-pipeline-2.0.0 Or
do you propose to split up corona-pipeline and corona-sitemap into
api/impl/components like we did in trunk? (NB: I would vote -100 on this
because it just doesn't make sense to split up things into api and impl
modules when there is most probably no second implementation in sight.)
Atm we have only a small set of modules in the Corona code, but
perhaps this might crow and the more it crows, the more difficult it
will be to tell people what Corona is.
Can you give an example for such descriptive names?
I like the idea of functional names but I just fail to see how this
can work in our case :-/
One of them could be "Cocoon Pipeline API", "Cocoon Sitemap API" (I
don't like this very much - but it's just an example).
Don't you think that this will blur the lines between Cocoon trunk and
the Corona code too much and make it really difficult to understand what
modules can be used together?
Additionally we would carve it in stone that Corona becomes the next
major version of Cocoon. Not that I'm against this in general, but I'm
not sure if it isn't too early for such a decision.
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
