I think we'll want to have everything under a qpid package eventually... we may need different sub-packages to differentiate between 0-8 and 0-10 code. Antyhing other than .qpid. would seem *odd* :-)
-- Rob On 06/08/07, Rafael Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert Greig wrote: > > On 06/08/07, Arnaud Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This is done. I have also changed the 0.10 client package name to be > >> consistent with the one used in common. So, I have moved > >> org.apache.qpid.nclient to org.apache.qpidity. > >> What do you think about this name? Should we keep it or change it? I > >> think that whatever name we go for, we should use it consistently > >> between common and client (and eventually broker). > > > > You mean the name "qpidity"? How did you arrive at it? > > I wanted a temporary package name to submit my code, so I just tacked > the first thing onto qpid that sounded vaguely like a word. As it turns > out "cupidity" is actually a real, but obscure, word that has a mildly > amusing meaning. > > --Rafael >
