+1 from me, for renaming the module to implementation-spring-runtime. I remember, we had a discussion to name it as implementation-spring-sca due to some design changes that happened some time back. But renaming it to implementation-spring-runtime makes more sense. Thanks.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I have read all the README files, etc in the Implementation Spring and > > I think I understand the particularity of the extension, but what I > > couldn't figure out is why the module naming is not following the same > > convention we follow for all other modules (e.g implementation-xxx, > > implementation-xxx-runtime)... Does anyone have more details on this ? > > > > -- > > Luciano Resende > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > Hi Luciano > > Don't know. Ram made the change but svn comment doesn't say why. I > note that the READMEs in both implementation-spring and > implementation-spring-sca still refer to > implementation-spring-runtime. We had implementation-spring-runtime in > 1.x. > > Simon > > -- > Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com > -- Thanks & Regards, Ramkumar Ramalingam
