On 11/09/2015 9:46 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
On 9/10/2015 4:37 PM, Peter wrote:
...
Now that the project has decided the only api is net.jini.* it would
seem appropriate to move the org.apache.river.api packages into
org.apache.river.
...
Have we decided that?
It didn't go to a vote and initially I thought it wasn't right, but it
does seem to simplify the package structure for users.
It also forces the project to tackle the standards, which are becoming
an impediment to further development.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the standards aren't used
for collaboration between different implementations, but rather, as
architecture documentation?
In general principle, in order to move forward, we need somewhere to
add API that is not part of the Jini standard.
It would seem so, but there are people participating in the project that
don't recognise anyting outside net.jini as api. It seemed better to go
with it, for the sake of users, than to allow confusion.
My main agenda is that there should be a clear distinction between
what we intend to support long term as API vs. implementation code
that can change from release to release.
I share your agenda, I thought it better to agree on what namespace was
api (rather than argue), so we can get down to business on determining
what we want in our api.
The recent discussion outcome was:
net.jini.* - api
org.apache.river.* - implementation.
Regards,
Peter.
