I'm in agreement with Jonathan here, using just Apache with no component set name will give us problems further down the line if we dev a new set of comps. So we could use 'a' + 'the first letter of the marketing name', then, tag the full name on the end of the URL.
Tink Jonathan Campos <jonbcam...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>wrote: > >> > My vote is to keep the spark ns in the 4.x branch and then have a new >> > namespace when we decide to create a new set of components. >> 100% agree with that. Again not suggestion we change existing name space >> just that we add one or two. >> >> I'm actually thinking we don't add any names right now, just stick with >spark. I wouldn't want to see us get name crazy. I know you say "one or >two", but that is a slipper slope to a few dozen pretty quickly. If >something doesn't fit the current model well enough that it needs it's own >namespace should it even be included in the core? > > > >> > I do agree with Daniel in that we don't use "apache" or any derivation as >> > we are then stuck for the next set of components. >> Stuck how exactly? Package names may be a bit longer but is that really an >> issue? >> >> >Stuck as in if we name some set of components "apache" and then after some >time we make a new set.. we call them apache2? I'd prefer to just come up >with a more 'marketing' style name. > > >> > Though I may be convinced to have a namespace for experimental >> components. >> Any idea what you would name it? > > >No idea. This is just talking out loud but it may be good for one of the >branches that are more in development rather than the trunk. The trunk >would always have finalized names and packages. This would be more for >those developers that like to live on the edge. > >-- >Jonathan Campos
