On 8 Feb 2014, at 5:51, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Nick Williams
nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net wrote:
Yes, they might as well follow the same pattern. I was already
working on
the MongoDB provider, so I went ahead and renamed the package. I also
added
items to
Hi
one minor thing in ClouchDBProvider:
* The Apache CouchDB implementation of {@link NoSQLProvider}.
*/
@Plugin(name = CouchDb, category = Core, printObject = true)
public final class CouchDBProvider
The name of this plugin is CouchDb while the correct name of the
product
is CouchDB:
also the packagename is just couch, but it should better be couchdb.
The name couch is misleading imho
On 7 Feb 2014, at 16:11, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Hi
one minor thing in ClouchDBProvider:
* The Apache CouchDB implementation of {@link NoSQLProvider}.
*/
@Plugin(name = CouchDb, category
It doesn't so much matter because the XML element names are case insensitive,
but if we change the plugin name for CouchDB we should probably also change it
for MongoDB. There's a reason I did that, I just can't remember what it was...
I don't see any compelling reason to rename the package.
On 7 Feb 2014, at 16:19, Nick Williams wrote:
It doesn't so much matter because the XML element names are case
insensitive, but if we change the plugin name for CouchDB we should
probably also change it for MongoDB. There's a reason I did that, I
just can't remember what it was...
I don't
I do want to remind everyone that vetoes are only valid if they are backed
by a technical justification.
Scott
On Feb 7, 2014 8:07 AM, Nick Williams nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net
wrote:
I'm not convinced it really makes a difference, but it's better than
couchdb, so if the majority wants
I would appreciate if there wasn't even a threat of veto.
I would like to see folks ask questions and talk about concerns, and then
only mention a veto when there is no other recourse.
On Feb 7, 2014 8:14 AM, Nick Williams nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net
wrote:
Yep. I would've accompanied any
folks thats what i meant.
Couchbase is a different database than CouchDB. They share the same
roots,
but meanwhile have some differences.
My guess is one needs a second appender.
The one we have seems to work with couchdb, so the package should be
named couchdb.
If we want to support
Yep. I would've accompanied any veto with technical justification. Since I
can't come up with a technical justification for renaming it to couchbase, I
won't veto it. :-)
N
On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
I do want to remind everyone that vetoes are only valid if they are
Ohhh okay. I misunderstood. H. Well I suppose in that case we really must
rename it, although I'm not super happy about it. But I'm convinced it's
necessary.
I guess we rename the couch package to couchdb.
Nick
On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
folks thats what i
I'm not convinced it really makes a difference, but it's better than couchdb,
so if the majority wants couchbase it I won't veto it. Be sure to change the
test package name, too.
Nick
On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
+1 to couchbase
On Feb 7, 2014 7:54 AM, Christian
The couchdb package part name sounds like a clear match to CouchDB, the
product.
Gary
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Nick Williams
nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net wrote:
Ohhh okay. I misunderstood. H. Well I suppose in that case we really
must rename it, although I'm not super happy
+1 to couchbase
On Feb 7, 2014 7:54 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 Feb 2014, at 16:19, Nick Williams wrote:
It doesn't so much matter because the XML element names are case
insensitive, but if we change the plugin name for CouchDB we should
probably also change it
I am sorry that I didn't express myself better. For some reason I
thought everybody would know about the couchdb/couchbase issue.
I have committed the change to svn.
Sorry that I don't know if I should have opened an issue for this or add
an entry to changes.xml, maybe one can remind me...
Yes, they might as well follow the same pattern. I was already working on the
MongoDB provider, so I went ahead and renamed the package. I also added items
to changes.xml for both renames. I think this closes this discussion.
Nick
On Feb 7, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
I am
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Nick Williams
nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net wrote:
Yes, they might as well follow the same pattern. I was already working on
the MongoDB provider, so I went ahead and renamed the package. I also added
items to changes.xml for both renames. I think this closes
16 matches
Mail list logo
