On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Greg Brown<[email protected]> wrote: >> java and javax are reserved namespaces for platform classes, so I >> don't see their relevance here. > > The relevance is that Pivot's classes are meant to replace many of these > platform classes, and should therefore be given equal billing.
Is not relevant. Logger from log4j is meant to replace java's logger class. Yet it lives in org.apache.log4j Wicket's Component class is meant to replace Swing's Component, JSF's Component, yet it lives in org.apache.wicket. This is not relevant. >> Regarding "outdated"... not using the reversed fully qualified domain >> name was the way old projects named their packages. That is the >> outdated variety. Even junit, which is has been around since the early >> days has converted to org.junit. > > I'm suggesting that the TLD prefix is outdated. I'd much prefer "junit.*" to > "org.junit.*", for example. Personal preference, but TLD is *not* outdated. It is the defacto standard. Furthermore, you are now an Apache project. Part of that is using the org.apache package name, similar to not using pivot.org, but pivot.apache.org. > How likely is a project to use classes from > "org.junit" and "com.junit" at the same time (if the latter even existed)? Doesn't matter. > IMO, not very. I'm assuming that's why Microsoft dropped the convention when > they came up with the C# coding standards. You're not programming in C#, and it fails the exit requirements stated in both quotes I provided. >> I don't see pivot.* being any less official than org.apache.pivot.*. >> You have the full might of Apache there, and there's no need to have >> to type in those package names anymore with current IDEs. > > I understand that this is a minor distinction, but Sun's naming guidelines > make any classes not developed by Sun for the java(x).* package seem like > second-class citizens. Nope. That is something you pulled out of your own perception hat. > It's hard enough as it is to convince developers to > use Pivot instead of the "official" UI toolkits provided by Sun. Why make it > any more difficult than it needs to be? Trust me, I have worked in the wicket.* namespace and the number of times we had to explain why we weren't using org.wicket or net.sf.wicket, etc. got really old. People really want code to live in neatly organized packages and not pollute the global namespace. Having your packages reside in org.apache.pivot gives new users direct access to where pivot lives, what the license is, and what brand is behind it. Not so with just plain "pivot.*". Based on precedent in the incubator, you'd have to come up with something a lot stronger than "I prefer", "same level as Java" and the other sentiments you put here. All projects going through the incubator had to rename their project, and I fail to see how pivot is anything more special than say "wicket", "jsecurity", "jspwiki", or "empire-db". Martijn
