Hi, I remember some insisting that while MINA was at Directory it should use org.apache.mina so that users will not have to change their code upon graduation. This was pushed early in the beginning when MINA was just forming even before the possibility of graduation in sight. There was staunch resistance to using org.apache.directory.mina as the base package name as well as using org.apache.directory.mina for the groupId.
I think asyncweb has the potential to grow into it's own TLP one day. Should any subproject with these intentions, like MINA did, be allowed to carve out it's own groupId and it's own package base? Alex On Jan 24, 2008 9:05 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niklas Gustavsson wrote: > > Trustin Lee wrote: > >> 1) Should all three's groupId be 'org.apache.mina', or should the two > >> have different groupIds like 'org.apache.mina.http' and > >> 'org.apache.mina.ftp'? I have no particular preference here. > > > > Having subprojects in "sub-groupIds" makes most sense to me. > > org.apache.mina.ftp seems perfectly appropriate for FtpServer. > Seems good to me. Simple, and reflect exactly what the group is all about. > > > > On a related note, what should be the name of FtpServer? Previously, > > at the incubator, it has been called "Apache FtpServer" and this is > > still reflected on the site, in POMs and so on. Should we keep this > > name or choose a new? > Keep it simple. Apache FTP Server helps to understand that it's an FTP > server and it's delivered by Apache. Exotic names make it difficult to > remember for our users. I personally find that we are using too many of > those strange names (Cayenne, Felix, Forrest, Lenya ...) (This is a > personal opinion, of course). > > And it will avoid a lot of refactoring of poms, site, doco... > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
