On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:02 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> We currently have two extensions that does not follow the naming >>> pattern we have of extension/extension-runtime, and these are >>> binding-atom-abdera and implementation-bpel-ode. >>> >>> Should we rename these extensions to properly follow the naming >>> convention we have been using for other extensions ? >>> >>> -- >>> Luciano Resende >>> Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk >>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende >>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >>> >> >> In 2.x or 1.x? >> >> I would say this is a 2.x job to tidy these up rather than revisiting >> in 1.x. In 2.x binding-ws-axis2 doesn't fit either. >> >> Simon >> > > My 2 cents ... > > Leave 1.x alone as changing these could break user builds > > It wont be a surprise after the last couple of week that I'd be in > favour of changing the 2.x names so we consistently use -runtime. We > don't have multiple impls of any extension in 2.x and when we do we > can just add a -runtime-foo. > > ...ant >
Ok, I'll just update 2.x then.... -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
