JServ has a bug which might not allow an application to use aliasing. I
know JServ is only one servlet engine and may not be the one you are using,
but having Turbine outside any package makes for an easier url for those
using JServ.
Java allows one to specify classes without a package, so it must be ok to do
so, if one has a good enough reason. Making things easier for (what I
assume is the majority, or at a large number of) Turbine users using JServ
is a good enough reason for me.
You seem to be saying, "it isn't a problem for me, if someone isn't using
aliasing, let them suffer". Either they will end up having to move Turbine
outside a package, or you can put it in one. It is easy enough to go either
way.
Why is moving it to a package so important that the inconviences it may
cause are overcome?
John McNally
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin A. Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Turbine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: Turbine.java in it's own package?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. I know. I am going to try a hack that does
> > > sourcefiles="*.java"... or something.
> >
> > That is a good solution. You should be able to steal the * code from Ant
> > to do this.
> >
> > > I mean this is why packages exist right. Let use them. Honestly if
> > > another .java file poped up with no package we would -1 it in a
second.
> >
> > I seriously doubt anyone will call their servlet Turbine, especially in
a
> > "public" sense.
> >
> > > Nope. Not anymore. We require a initialization parameter! :) This
> > > means they *have* to alias it! At least in JServ and Turbine.
> > > Honestly a Servlet Engine will never really be user friendly. If they
> > > alias it they will probably come up with another name anyway.
Something
> > > like say... oh... "jetspeed" or "turbine" ?
> >
> > In JServ you do not need to do the alias by default. Maybe so in Tomcat,
I
> > don't know.
> >
> > > So any other reason. I am like -0.2 on this... not a full one yet :)
> >
> > I vote to keep it, unless you have motivation or a really good reason
> > other than it breaks Alexandria. ;-)
> >
> > I'm trying to look long term at a reason why it might screw someone up
and
> > I can't see any good excuses. Even if it does, it is OS and they could
> > move it to a package as needed.
>
> OK. So what I am hearing is:
>
> ---
>
> ~ Turbine with no package is OK because it is easier on the user when
> then are setting up the engine.
>
> ---
>
> Right? I mean Turbine is a hard thing to setup. It isn't like MS
> Office or anything. I think the -0.2 is enough to justify moving this.
> Ease of use isn't that huge of a justification if you ask me. .....
>
> Kevin
>
> --
> Kevin A Burton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> http://relativity.yi.org
> Message to SUN: "Open Source Java!"
> "For evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
