Yes and Apache would not be happy with that. Usually it has to be org.apache.<projectname>.....
We can rename qpidity after we figure out a proper naming scheme for the new work being done. Rajith On 8/6/07, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > >
