> -----Original Message----- > From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 3:51 PM > To: Peter Donald > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Naming issues > > > > Peter Donald wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 04:07, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > > >>>If not, can they still use the name 'commons' ? ( like > >>>commons-logging, etc ). > >> > >>since it is compartmentalised under jakarta, mho is 'yes'. > > > > > > The one problem (at least in java land) is that classes are > usually namespaced > > in reverse DNS order. ie > > > > org.apache.commons.X > > > > which will clash with jakarta commons. Apache.com does not > seem to do java > > development work so it may be the case where we can move to > > > > apache.commons.X > > > > for the Apache commons - thus sidestepping namespace > issues. Not sure though. > > > > Actually I don't see the problem, since Jakarta Commons is > about common > Java code, and commons is about common java code...
The problem is that Apache Commons *could* host Java code, in addition to C++, C#, Python, etc. If you don't differentiate the namespaces, then it's possible that an org.apache.commons.foo package could come out of either or both of Apache Commons and Jakarta Commons. Now *that* would be confusing... -- Martin Cooper > > Some projects will migrate before, some later, some never, > but I'm sure > overlap will not be necessary, as the proposed *bleah* solution ;-P > > -- > Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - verba volant, scripta manent - > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
