On 1/24/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
But it's not just "naming". It's also about repository structure and site generation. OK, I think we reached to final point then. We'll do it soon. > Alex -- Ersin
