feel free to rename the plugin. I realy don't care about the plugin name ;)
Having org.apache.openejb as a prefix at least ensures that everybody is able to figure out the originator of the plugin quiet easily. Cheers Daniel On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Daniel, I really like your suggestion. I'll have a go at factoring > the common code into a new core plugin, and add a couple of new features. Do > you think its worth keeping the WTP server stuff in a > org.eclipse.jst.server.generic.openejb plugin inside the > org.apache.openejb.server feature - I still think it would be nice to rename > it (we're not actually using the generic JST stuff anymore). > > Cheers > > Jon > > Daniel S. Haischt wrote: >> >> what about creating several new eclipse features like ... >> >> * org.apache.openejb.branding >> ** org.apache.openejb.branding >> >> * org.apache.openejb.help >> ** org.apache.openejb.help >> ** org.apache.openejb.help.nl1 >> ** org.apache.openejb.help.nl2 >> ** org.apache.openejb.help.nl2a >> ** org.apache.openejb.help.nlBidi >> >> * org.apache.openejb.annotation >> ** org.apache.openejb.helper.annotation >> ** org.apache.openejb.helper.annotation.test >> ** org.apache.openejb.builder >> >> * org.apache.openejb.server >> ** org.eclipse.jst.server.generic.openejb >> >> Most times it helps if you try to structure your plugins into fine >> granular features for example Geronimo could re-use OpenEJB features >> that way or vice versa. >> >> Factoring out common code into a commons/foundations/core plugin >> sounds reasonable as well. >> >> > >
