Erwin van der Koogh wrote:
Do we want to do the hard yards for JuiCE
and contact the current users
or the name?
There's only 2 that we could find. Sending an email to them can't seem
to hurt. Give them a couple days to respond and we are set.
This issue seems very tricky. If they don't agree or if they don't
respond, what then? Probably it won't be appropriate to go ahead with
the
name before we are sure. I know this would sound tough but why not hunt
for the name again?
If they don't respond they don't care.. if they do respond I can't
really believe they would have a huge problem with it. A mpg123
frontend is completely and absolutely different than a cryptographic
library. Neither is also likely to be extremely popular and well-known.
The other project hasn't released any code as of yet and I think
doesn't have that many bragging rights.
If they have a big problem I guess we go find ourselves another name.
I like that approach. It is always easier to ask for forgiveness than
it is to ask for permission... Unless you know you'll run into trouble
- which I don't believe we will.
It will make a big difference if they come
scream at us a couple years
down the road.
As an aside - thoughts on the package
name (see Noel's last question).
I have no problems with an org.apache.security package name.
Can we be sure about this? Do we know we won't have something like
"org.apache.jce" or something else. Just some thoughts.
I think it makes sense to have a decent package structure with a common
package.
So
- org.apache.security.jce
- org.apache.security.signature
- org.apache.security.encryption
I'm concerned about org.apache.security.signature and
org.apache.security.encryption. Maybe org.apache.
xml.security.signature
and org.apache.
xml.security.encryption as a more appropriate
packages. I'm not too hung up on it though...
etc etc..
Erwin
