John McClain wrote: > Gianugo Rabellino wrote: >> On 6/2/07, Jim Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Sorry for the delay in responding. >>> >>> Thanks Jukka -- the plan is to bring in the code as is >>> and make the changes you described (essentially >>> com.sun.* --> org.apache.river.*). >>> >>> Question, though -- is it required that we make that >>> change before we make an initial release? >> >> You wouldn't be the first one asking to keep a namespace for >> compatibility sake, see >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal. However, the recent >> beta from the Wicket guys is in the org.apache.wicket namespace. >> >> I'm not sure if there are any stringent and formal rules from the ASF, >> but indeed I would be very reluctant in releasing Apache code under a >> non-Apache namespace, unless packages are carved in stone by an >> implemented standard (such as javax.xml and, I assume, net.jini) > > For the com.sun.jini classes I think it is not a question of "if" the > they will be moved to the org.apache.river name space, but "when". I > think there was some notion that there was value in making one (or two?, > my memory is fuzzy) release with com.sun.jini name space to ease the > transition and make it straightforward for people to integrate any delta > they have made against the last release of Sun's Jini starter kit. >
Yep I certainly have some concerns around com.sun.jini.start - that's used by a lot of people and changing that as part of a first release might be asking a lot of our users.
