We share the gut feeling, but... we have to decide as well. There are a few more projects that start with their own names. E.g. JUnit, and - according to Martijn - some Oracle stuff as well.
I think this is a recap of the votes: Jonathan +1 Chris +1 Martijn +1 Johan +1 (but also for org.wicket) Gwyn +1 Martijn +1 Juergen 0 Eelco 0 (org.wicket preferred, but anything better than the current com.*) So, I guess we have a winner (wicket.* that is). Any volunteers for asking Spring Framework how they did that. I have to say that personally, I don't care much for the history right now (Wicket still being alpha). But that's just me, right? Regards, Eelco -----Original Message----- From: Juergen Donnerstag [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: vr 10-12-2004 8:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [Wicket-develop] this reminds me... I've not seen many (actually I cannot remember any) project which does not start with com./org./net.. And I'm fairly sure that not all packages which start with com/net/org have there hompages at http://...<project name>(.com/.net/.org). I cannot explain why, but I feel a little bit uncomfortable with wicket.*. May be because it is somewhat uncommon. I still prefer net. or org.wicket... But because it is only a gut-feeling 0, for wicket.* Juergen ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
<<winmail.dat>>
