Do you prefer "apache-james-mime4j-0.3.jar" or "apache-mime4j-0.3.jar" ?
In practice: when the project name is already in the james namespace (server alone does not identify a james product, but jspf, jsieve, mime4j, postage and mailet do) should we use "apache-" instead of "james" or should we use both anyway? I suggest the use of apache-mime4j because I don't like too much long file names. Furthermore JAMES Server is currently packaged as "james-" alone. I'd like to use the "server" name and this proposal adds the apache prefix so this should be named "apache-james-server-X.X.X-classifier.ext" (classifier=bin|src, ext=zip|jar|tar.gz). About the modules jars currently they are named like "james-server-imapserver-function". In this case we should simply add the "apache-" prefix. WDYT? Stefano Stefano Bagnara ha scritto: > Danny Angus ha scritto: >> Irrespective of whether or not this is an ASF wide "policy", I would >> say that that putting "apache" in James jar names is a practice which >> a) we could easily adopt, and b) makes a fair amount of sense, and >> therefore I would propose that we do so. >> >> d. > > I was already adding this to mime4j, but a proposal and a more formal > discussion is welcome. > > I'll wait a couple of days to see what happens in this thread. > > Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
