Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
You guys have finally convinced me. Let's use 3.0.x for Corona,
clearly state that it is alpha software on the website in the
README.txt of each release artifact and see what's happening.
Then we only need to find a package name that isn't used in trunk
because Corona should run in parallel with Cocoon 2.2 without a
problem (haven't tried it yet but at least in theory).
The simplest solution would be keeping 'corona' as part of the
package name (org.apache.cocoon.corona). IIRC Tomcat also kept the
'catalina' package names.
Any other suggestions?
I forgot to mention that we also have to find unique Maven artifact
IDs for the reasons explained above.
Great, I'm fine with using 3.0.x as well.
For the package names and artifact ids, I'm not sure if we should keep
corona inside.
I would have been fine for package names since they are internal, but
not for artifactIds or groupIds.
I would prefer to simply use different functional package
names. And if we use the package names as group ids, we're fine.
org.apache.cocoon.corona:corona-pipeline:1.0.0 ->
org.apache.cocoon.pipeline:cocoon-pipeline:3.0.0
org.apache.cocoon.corona:corona-sitemap:1.0.0 ->
org.apache.cocoon.sitemap.language.xml:cocoon-sitemap-language-xml:3.0.0
org.apache.cocoon.corona:corona-controller:1.0.0 ->
org.apache.cocoon.controller:cocoon-controller:3.0.0
org.apache.cocoon.corona:corona-servlet:1.0.0 ->
org.apache.cocoon.http.servlet:cocoon-http-servlet:3.0.0
any better ideas? (org.apache.cocoon.servlet is already in use)
--
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]
________________________________________________________________________
