+1, clearer names are good, mainly for newbies like me that isn't yet familiarized with the module names ; )
Adriano Crestani On 4/7/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 Consistent is always good, and we should keep this in mind when creating new modules as well. On 4/6/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like to adopt more consistent naming conventions to name the > modules under java/sca/modules. Most of our modules use complete names > (binding-*, databinding-*, contribution-*), but a few still use > abbreviations, I'd like to rename them to use clearer, complete names > and have a consistent naming scheme. > > idl > idl-java > idl-java-xml > idl-wsdl > idl-wsdl-xml > impl-java > impl-java-xml > > will become: > interface > interface-java > interface-java-xml > interface-wsdl > interface-wsdl-xml > implementation-java > implementation-java-xml > > If there's no objection I'll make this change sometime tomorrow. > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende
