On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Simon Lessard > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I raised that issue before, but I came to change my mind about the naming > > since the spec itself added extra packages including facelets. So, I'd > like > > to place MyFaces Facelets into package > > > > org.apache.myfaces.webapp.pdl.facelets > > or > > org.apache.myfaces.pdl.facelets (since I don't think webapp makes any > sense > > there) > > I agree on not much sense in webapp, however, I'd like to have the packed > name: > org.apache.myfaces.webapp.pdl.facelets > > > > > to reflect the JSF package javax.faces.webapp.pdl.facelets on the API > side. > > > > Also, in the long run (so not until we pass the TCK and everything more > > important was already done), I think we should do the same with the JSP > > classes, moving them all to > > > > org.apache.myfaces.webapp.pdl.jsp > > or > > org.apache.myfaces.pdl.jsp > > > > > > Which one do you prefer? Or do you have a better suggestion? > > This is a pretty good idea. Again, I'd go for > org.apache.myfaces.webapp.pdl.jsp > > -Matthias > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > Hi I'll go to 'webapp' variant, since it is intuitive associate it with javax.faces.webapp.pdl, but really the word 'webapp' does not say anything. regards Leonardo Uribe
