+1/-1 from my side; I've no problem with the new feature names, but it's also OK for me to use the old structure.
Kind regards, Andreas On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 14:07, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 for reverting to a more user-friendly naming, I kinda like the "project > shortname"-"feature" syntax like karaf-obr or the like > > regards, Achim > > 2011/10/13 Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]> > > > > > > > I think we should revert the name (I will do it if all are agree). If, > as > > > David said, some feature name are ambiguous (for instance jndi), I have > > no > > > problem to change to more descriptive name (for instance, > > aries-jndi-service > > > or whatever). > > > > > > > Yes, I agree on that and I think that Daniel mentioned that as a naming > > convention. > > -- > > *Ioannis Canellos* > > * > > FuseSource <http://fusesource.com> > > > > ** > > Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com > > ** > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > > Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer > > Apache Gora <http://incubator.apache.org/gora/> Committer > > * > > > > > > -- > -- > *Achim Nierbeck* > > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & > Project Lead > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> >
