Ross Gardler wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > >I see that many of our plugins, even new ones, are not using > >the naming convention. > >... snipped from plugins/pluginInfrastructure.html > >------------- > >org.apache.forrest.plugin.PLUGINNAME > >net.sf.forrestPlugins.PLUGINNAME > >In addition the name of the plugin should indicate > >the type of plugin it is: > >NAME-input > >NAME-output > >NAME-internal > >------------- > > > >Should we amend the existing names before the 0.7 release? > > > >Should we get plugins/build.xml seedPlugin target to > >append the -$type part. > > I forgot I'd written that ;-) > > The practice I have been following is that if it is an input plugin then > it need not have the extension (given that most plugins are input. > > However, this is probably not ideal since it is an exception to the rule. > > I'd say that, for the 0.7 release we should make all the names conform > to the documented standard and deprecate all the old plugins (this is OK > since the plugin infrastructure is part of the 0.7-dev work).
Why "deprecate"? Rather we should just rename (and mention the consolidation in changelog). --David > The idea of changing the build target is an excellent one too. > > Ross
