"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> > Morgan Delagrange wrote:
> > >
> > > Geir, you seemed happy with Repository. Is that still
> > > the case? I'm willing to change the name to
> > > Repository, unless there are other supporters of
> > > Commons Proper, in which case we'll vote. I'm not
> > > married to Commons Proper, I just don't like the name
> > > Components. The whole project is about components.
> > > I'm a little hesitant about Repository, since the
> > > Sandbox is also a repository, but I think it's clear
> > > enough.
> >
> > I like repository, but am waiting to hear what others think.
> >
>
> Repository is fine, but I didn't really have any problem with
> Components. Originally I had thought about "Packages", but there won't
> always be a 1:1 correspondence with the Java notion of a Package.
I am happy with either. I liked Components as that is what I think of
them, but Morgan has a contrary view.
> > And I don't think of sandbox as a 'repository' as it's unorganized.
> >
>
> Sandbox is a experimental playpen, with no distinguishable individual
> contents. In fact, the guidelines say it should not be available to the
> public, either -- should we remove the anonymous CVS link to it that I
> created by habit?
>
Hm. I didn't realize the guidelines say that. I like it open because
it's 'more stuff' for people to take part in, to comment on, to
contribute to... but that's just personal feeling. I think its
important that its clear that the Components are the 'deliverable', and
the Sandbox isn't.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
