Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> on 2/2/01 12:27 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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 personally obey it and as someone at the PMC level, then I see my job as
> being to encourage you and others to obey it as well. Two wrongs don't make
> a right. I personally think that the namespace for Tomcat should really be:
>
> org.apache.tomcat
> org.apache.tomcat.naming
> org.apache.tomcat.jasper (at least until it is split out of the Servlet API)
>
> Catalina itself should live within the Tomcat namespace since it is simply a
> revolution that has already been voted to become Tomcat.
>
> For a perfect example of this, I created Anakia which is used as the basis
> to power our website. I placed Anakia within org.apache.velocity.anakia and
> created a small documentation page for Anakia within the Velocity project.
>
> There are several things within Turbine that could be spun out as separate
> projects as well such as Torque, DB connection pool, Intake, etc...however,
> I haven't found the need so far to do that...(although, it is starting to
> become more clear there is a need for that)...
>
> >> 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.
>
> Then you should be suggesting another top level project be created instead
> of creating a pseudo project that is half within Avalon and half within the
> top level namespace.
>
> Just like there is for Jetspeed.
>
not sure... from Peter point of view phoenix is one possible kernel
implementation exactly as cocoon is (uses avalon as scheleton) as James
(is a block but a mailet container/engine too) and as turbine or
jetspeed could be. Remember avalon is not by any mean related to the
idea of Block. It's just a set of abstract design patterns and some
utils.
Right now I'm +0.5 for peter proposal. But I don't want this to stop
avalon from moving.
Federico Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
