Adriano Crestani wrote:
+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
>
>
Under revision r526480 I also adjusted most package names to match the
module names.
"interface" is a Java keyword so I used interfacedef for the packages in
the interface-* modules.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
