On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:59 PM David Blevins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 2017, at 4:56 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So I want to pick back up at least with fault tolerance. Would anyone > be opposed to starting up a repo on it? I'm thinking of the name > "Safeguard" so that it would either be "org.apache.safeguard" or > "org.apache.geronimo.safeguard" as group id in maven (xbean uses the > former, config the latter). > > I have a strong preference for “org.apache.safeguard" over > “org.apache.geronimo.safeguard”. We have 14 years of Google search results > to work against and a few million developers brains that say Geronimo is an > app server. Every time we put “Geronimo” on something, it’s a strike > against Hammok, Meecrowave and TomEE and any MP implementation that may > want to use it but not confuse the world that “Geronimo is back". > My preference is to keep "org.apache.safeguard" as well. I've created the base skeleton with "org.apache.geronimo.safeguard" but not sure it'll stay. Would be good to get a solid response on naming recommendations, so we'll see. Most other sub-projects just use their own name. > > If we do want a parent package, I repeat we can use org.apache.xbean if we > like. It was meant for common reusable stuff. We do not need to shackle > ourselves with any self-imposed restrictions like “xbean needs to be all > released at once”. That was only done out of laziness. > > The reason I'm hesitant to look at XBean, it seems to be focused on a single target (which is good for a sub-project). It would start to confuse things to make more stuff XBean. Plus its a kind of odd name, I'm guessing the X is for XML. > > -David > > > > > > > >
