Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: Ersin Er [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Which form is better up to you?
1)
<groupId>org.apache.directory.mina</groupId>
<artifactId>core</artifactId>
or
2)
<groupId>org.apache.directory.mina</groupId>
<artifactId>org.apache.directory.mina</artifactId>
or
3)
<groupId>org.apache.directory.mina</groupId>
<artifactId>mina-core</artifactId>
This is the only one that makes sense in my opinion. It is short and
informative enough.
And another point: if we choose, for example the 3rd option, consider
integration and filter subprojects:
Which one do you prefer?
3.1)
<groupId>org.apache.directory.mina</groupId>
3.1.1) <artifactId>mina-netty-codec-filter</artifactId>
or
3.1.2) <artifactId>mina-filter-codec-netty</artifactId>
or
3.2)
<groupId>org.apache.directory.mina.filter.codec</groupId>
<artifactId>mina-netty-codec-filter</artifactId>
or
3.3)
<groupId>org.apache.directory.mina.filter.codec</groupId>
<artifactId>netty</artifactId> (which mimics 3.1.2 which is strict
package-class like scheme)
None of them sound right. I do not think you need to say that is a
codec-filter, you just need to say it is a bridge between mina and
netty. The details of the implementation do not need to be transparent
on the name of the artefact.
So something like:
<artifactId>mina-netty</artifactId>
Should be good enough.
Exactly, re: "The details of the implementation do not need to be
transparent
on the name of the artifact."
In the same light other modules like the ans1 and ssl modules not have filter
or codec added to the artifactId. There should be documentation on the site or
a README/README.layout file in mina top level that can explain the details if
people have any questions.
We are going to far ... playing with these names. Let's add a readme, shorten
the names and let's stabilize.
Alex
