The issue Flex-1[1] contains all the steps that need to be done to
graduate. It contains Flex-7[2] to which this vote was about.
The discussion has been taken on before,
pro:
*) Other projects/companies can not argue about using "org.apache"
as it clearly states "property of apache org"
*) Changing the namespace would be a sign of progress ...
contra:
*) The mx/spark packages are well known and no-one in the flash
world would try to use them
*) We'd have to rework a LOT of documentation, classes etc. in
short tons of work
*) Any depending project (many!) would need to change their
references to match the change
yours
Martin
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-1
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-7
On 04/04/2012 14:12, Omar Gonzalez wrote:
yours
Martin.
(Just wondering: Graduating isn't urgent?! okay...)
I think its urgent, there's just other things with high priorities that
need to get done before the decision to change packages for a future
release (one that is done after we do our initial release that should be as
identical to Adobe Flex 4.6). We still need to get JIRA issues imported and
learn to do a release under the Apache model. So I believe there's time to
have a discussion about a 5.0 (next big release). Getting JIRA imported,
getting the compiler code imported, and getting the rest of the Adobe
donations in (Mustella) is still going to take a bit so we have time to
figure this issue out.
I think the first thing that needs to get cleared up is if having
"org.apache.projectName..." as the start of your class package names is
actually a requirement of Apache projects or not. If it is not a
requirement of Apache projects and there aren't any good arguments for
adding "org.apache.flex." to the beginning of all packages then I don't
think that another vote on this would be needed as its pretty clear the
PPMC and a lot of the community is against it. But if it is a requirement
for Apache projects then that's a completely different story.
