Hi,
I guess this discussion is about publishing on ibiblio. We need to have
distinctive jar file names that folks can use to figure out what to
get. And there is not necessarily a 1-1 correspondence between what we
build in Apache JDO and what binaries show up on ibiblio.
1. Is it agreed that i
Indeed, I think I said "implementation".
:b
Andy Jefferson wrote:
On Thursday 14 Apr 2005 19:09, Brian Topping wrote:
I'm also a bit concerned about the groupId WRT to it's name in the
listing for ibiblio. I believe 'jdo' is a bit too generic, and does
nothing to distinguish the apache JDO from
On Thursday 14 Apr 2005 19:09, Brian Topping wrote:
> I'm also a bit concerned about the groupId WRT to it's name in the
> listing for ibiblio. I believe 'jdo' is a bit too generic, and does
> nothing to distinguish the apache JDO from other implementations as it
> should.
>
> I would suggest 'apa
I'm also a bit concerned about the groupId WRT to it's name in the
listing for ibiblio. I believe 'jdo' is a bit too generic, and does
nothing to distinguish the apache JDO from other implementations as it
should.
I would suggest 'apache-jdo' at the very minimum for this. Any
objections or b
Hi Craig,
Craig Russell wrote:
Hi Brian,
On Apr 6, 2005, at 10:52 PM, Brian Topping wrote:
Craig Russell wrote:
J5 is the reason I was bringing this up really. We know that they
are going to keep moving forward with support for future JDK
classfile formats, and with different features as well.
