I agree namespace is a better approach.
I also agree with Martin Cooper that Dojo packaging system ("provides"
and "require") is very cool. Actually, I think XAP should leverage Dojo
for packaging and loading.
Root namespace "xap" is fine. We should make it clear and encourage
different XAP adopters to adopt different namespace (using their company
name or something unique).
On 6/23/06, James Margaris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So I think there are two questions here.
>
> 1: What is the preferred approach.
> 2: For the preferred approach, what is a reasonable namespace/prefix?
>
>
> Again to summarize, my preference would be a namespaced approach with
> "xap" as the namespace root rather than "org.apache.xap"
>
> Opinions?
Martin Cooper wrote:
>I'm with you on both counts. The namespace approach is much more
scalable,
>and also allows for automated package management, which would be much
>harder to do with a prefix approach. For example, Dojo's 'provides' and
>'requires'
>mechanism is *very* cool, especially since you can use it for your own
code,
>and for defining profiles, etc. I'm also fine with 'xap' as the root
>namespace. I don't think there's any requirement to add 'org.apache' to
>that, just for the sake of it.
