Hi Bradley and list, I'll just address a few specific points here (inlined below):
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 15:37 +0100, Bradley McLean wrote: > Excuse me, please, for jumping in with a non-voting opinion. > > I'm not sure I see direct value in inserting 'duraspace' into each > individual project's naming schemes. I'd like to hear more, or see an > example of projects using different domain names for code and "official > information" where it becomes a problem. A few examples: * I use the IntelliJ Idea IDE for developing code in Java. Navigating between the websites * http://www.jetbrains.net * http://www.jetbrains.com * http://www.jetbrains.org is a sheer nightmare! To make matters worse the org/net/com variations also exist with "intellij.com" etc. And package namespaces in the code, should you decide to develop plugins or the like, are a mix of some subset of the above domains. * The linux OS distribution inexplicably also named Fedora used to have a host of websites for information and development, mixed among various domains owned by the fedora linux organisation and RedHat inc. They have finally merged under the fedoraproject.org-domain (except the bug tracker). In this case, I admit, no java packages were involved in this case. * I have often been lost looking for the right way to find documentation on the jakarta/apache projects, especially when they moved from Jakarta to apache proper (like tomcat did). In this case, the java package name has always been "org.apache" (as fra as I remember) but you had to go to "jakarta.apache.org" to find the information. Without understanding the structure of the apache organisation, it was quite difficult to navigate. Now, what I am a little afraid of, is that a "development website" grows up on "fcrepo.org" or similar, where some part of the development process happens, and that this will cause confusion. > Similarly, I'd like to hear > more about how changing the naming scheme is going to help code sharing > without creating many issues related to release scheduling, packaging, etc. I don't think it helps as such. I'd rather say it encourages it, by implicitly offering a namespace where it might happen. You might say you embrace the very idea of Duraspace at the package naming level. Of course anything shared between institutions, or even projects within an institution is subject to all the trouble you point out. To sum up, I don't see any need to invent a new domain name either. There is no organisation called "fcrepo" or "fedorarepo", so "fcrepo.org" and "fedorarepo.org" is really just causing confusion, in my opinion. And I don't really see the reason for brevity. Everyone developing java today is writing the code in an IDE (netbeans, eclipse, IntelliJ Idea), and package names really only ever show up in import-statements (except for a very few special cases), where the length is unimportant, and in documentation like javadoc, where I really think the "official" domain name should be promoted, be it duraspace.org or fedoracommons.org. That said, I'm happy to see Fedora move away from the old non-standard package names, so all in all anything is an improvement :-) Best, Kåre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Fedora-commons-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-developers
