On 8/22/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Are there plans to include 'spi' to the names of packages in the spi > module > as part of this effort ? > > Thanks > > - Venkat > > > On 8/21/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Module core contains an o.a.t.sca.scope package. > > > > I'm trying to fix package names to be consistent with the module names > > so o.a.t.sca.scope should be renamed to o.a.t.sca.core.scope, but > > there's already another o.a.t.sca.core.scope in module core! > > > > What is the difference between these two packages? > > > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
It would be useful for me for SPIs to be more easily identifiable. A suggestion. Given Sebastiens comment that started this thread we should be applying the name core-spi to the packages it contains. This would give us a model to follow in identifying spis, e.g. assembly-spi, contribution-spi, core-spi, binding-spi, databinding-spi etc. The alternative is to get rid of core-spi and roll the packages into the the existing modules. I would still like to see the packages identified as spis though. Doing either of these things would mean changing the current location of the spis of course. Are we ready for that kind of change? Other points Not all of the packages in core-spi are part of the SPI we declared in the CHANGES file Why are the interfaces in o.a.t.sca.scope an ex-spi? Simon
