At 11:10 2/2/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
>Ok, I'm seeing other people discuss this without any sort of final decision
>here, so I think we need to get back on topic. So far, top level package
>names are expressly reserved for top level projects.
Well not every one seems to obey it. Examples include catalina (3 top level
names - catalina, naming, jasper), James (mailet, james). I am sure I could
for more examples if I looked ;)
>I would be +1 for something like this:
>
>org.apache.avalon
>org.apache.avalon.phoenix
>org.apache.avalon.cornerstone
I would be -1 for it ;) The reason is we are just moving away from this.
The reason is that the base framework is used by phoenix rather than
phoenix being a part of avalon. I would put it in the same acceptability as
mandating "org.apache.turbine.jetspeed" as Jetspeed uses Turbine.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
