I would not worry too much about it right now. If you want to code
something, pick a package and go with it. Eventually we will be
re-packaging to better reflect the modular nature of the system, where
the module name is the final suffix of the package... like common is
org.apache.geronimo.common and such.
Anyways, just pick something for now and we will worry about it later.
--jason
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I'm fine with .server and .tool, but I don't think .common is
necessarily right for the other stuff. I guess by "the other stuff",
I'm
thinking of any kind of "back end logic" responsible for doing stuff on
the server side, that won't be exposed to the client.
Just saying that though makes me think that perhaps ".server"
doesn't mean what we want it to mean. Perhaps they should be
.enterprise.deploy.provider // the JSR-88 provider code
.enterprise.deploy.tool // the JSR-88 tool code
.enterprise.deploy.server // the back-end Geronimo logic that
// is not specific to JSR-88
My only concern is that if we have any subpackages, a 7-part
package name is kind of gross.
Aaron
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jonathan Duty wrote:
How about
geronimo.enterprise.deploy.common
geronimo.enterprise.deploy.server
geronimo.enterprise.deploy.tool
Let me know if I'm totally not understanding things (which could very
well be). ~Jonathan
