I may have missed the reasoning behind refactoring EMF's package name to org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.*. Can anyone tell me the benefit by doing that? Thanks.
Fuhwei ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I guess there's various ways it could be done, i was thinking of an sdo-complete jar containing all the sdo classes (org.apache.tuscany.sdo.**) and all the emf classes renamed from org.eclipse.emf.** to be org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.**. ...ant On 6/13/07, kelvin goodson wrote: > > Ant, this all sounds good, > +1 to the spec project move, > and certainly +1 to aggregating jars if we can > > but just to push back one more time, as I can see scope for your response > to Frank being open to misinterpretation. Can I check on what you mean by > renaming the packages, and whether there are any legal issues there please? > > > Kelvin > > On 13/06/07, ant elder wrote: > > > > On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky wrote: > > > > > > Ant, > > > > > > You said this: > > > > > > > While building that it could also rename the > > > > emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version > > > problems > > > > when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code. > > > > > > We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly > > > eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse > > and > > > Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this > > is > > > allowed? > > > > > > Pretty sure yes. Its fine for us to distribute the emf binaries as they > > are > > "Category B: Binary Licenses Only" as defined in > > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html, and AFAICS there's nothing in > > the > > EPL that prevents us doing this. > > > > ...ant > > > >
