Hi,

because there are no additional opinions and proposals I would start with the 
renaming on which Ramesh and Christian already agreed.
org.apache.olingo.commons.api.edm.provider
[*] -> Csdl* (CsdlProperty)

I give feedback when it is done.

Best regards,
Michael

> On 27 Apr 2015, at 15:24, Bolz, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I also agree with the suggestion for adding a prefix to the classes in the 
> package: org.apache.olingo.commons.api.edm.provider
> But I’am not sure about the “Csdl”.
> However I currently do not have a better proposal. 
> Perhaps somebody has a better name.
> 
> Another naming issue I see is the prefix “OData" of the classes within the 
> “org.apache.olingo.commons.api.domain” package.
> For me it seems that the prefix should be something like “Client” because the 
> classes are mainly (only) used in the context of the ODataClient.
> 
> Some opinions/suggestions about these points?
> 
> A result of the renaming could than look like:
> 
> org.apache.olingo.commons.api.data
> No changes; still: * (Property)
> org.apache.olingo.commons.api.domain
> [OData*] -> Client* (ClientProperty)
> org.apache.olingo.commons.api.edm
> No changes; still: Edm* (EdmProperty)
> org.apache.olingo.commons.api.edm.provider
> [*] -> Csdl* (CsdlProperty)
> 
> Best regards, Michael
> 
> 
>> On 27 Apr 2015, at 08:20, Bolz, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for feedback, I will take a look into your suggestion below and give 
>> feedback.
>> If all look good I would do the merge with the master branch today/tomorrow.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Michael
>> 
>>> On 24 Apr 2015, at 15:06, Ramesh Reddy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> looking good so far. How about this suggestion from before, Christian also 
>>> seemed to agree with it 
>>> 
>>> org.apache.ol in go.commons.api.edm.provider ==> objects created dur in g 
>>> CSDL document pars in g. "Edm" would have been right prefix for this, s in 
>>> ce can not be used how about "Csdl"? They represent objects from this 
>>> document. 
>>> 
>>> After this I will take another look at them, give you feedback. 
>>> 
>>> Ramesh.. 
>>> 
> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to