(Renamed the subject)
Randy Watler wrote:
All,
I voted +1 on this issue, but I assumed that we would not be using
totally unqualified names... that could indeed cause integration
problems. For example, I thought that soemthing like 'j2.page-manager'
seemed short AND isolated to J2. Names like
'org.apache.jetspped.page.PageManager' are just too long. I am still +1
provided we have a relatively unique short prefix like 'j2'.
I'm +1 on that solution. As long as we have a unique namespace prefix.
Randy
David Le Strat wrote:
On simplified naming conventions in the Spring
configs, I am -1 as well. I agree with Ate and Keith.
--- Ate Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scott T Weaver wrote:
Yup, see bullet point 5 ;)
I'm not sure you two are talking about the same
thing here...
Is bullet point 5) about the simplified naming
conventions in the Spring configs?
Or is Raphaël talking about the refactoring of our
packages we discussed several weeks ago?
For the record: I've decided I'm -1 on the
simplified naming conventions in the Spring configs
as it kills the namespace benefit which also has
been pointed out by Keith Garry Boyce.
Regards,
Ate
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
