There are enough projects for which a "fun name" works just fine. Usually they are bigger though. *shrug* No strong opinion on this one.
I do have a strong opinion on the package name though. Definitely should live in our package space. After all it's just a right click on "refactor". cheers -- Torsten On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:59, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > Gary Gregory wrote at Dienstag, 28. April 2009 08:10: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 6:46 PM >>> To: Commons Developers List >>> Subject: [sanselan] Next steps >>> >>> We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1]. Welcome! > > Yes, welcome. I have myself some image (resp. imageio) related code sitting > here and I'll have a close look whether it makes sense to add this also. > >>> We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]: >>> >>> 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun" >>> name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would it >>> be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan? >> >> +1 for a functional name, Image or other. > > +1 > > Actually, if I have some need of common functionality not part of the JDK, > my first look is at the Apache commons components. Looking for image > related code I'd probably never spotted senselan though, simply because I > expect that the component name matches the covered topic. > >>> My preference would be to adopt a functional name. We used to have this >>> documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages, >>> so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just >>> personally forgot about to eliminate this policy. If others - most >>> importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not changing >>> the name, I am OK with it. It makes it easier for people to find their >>> way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive. >>> Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate topic. >>> >>> 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of >>> Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would >>> these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun >>> name as above)? >>> >>> My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name. >>> Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name. >> >> +1, yep, just like all other commons packages. > > +1 > > [snip] > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
