Warren Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My feeling at this point is that a gnu.classpath hierarchy would be more
> appropriate than a gnu.java one. I realize that would mean a change to
> the existing structure and that is not fun. Is there a better approach?
> I'm sure that there are other aspects to this that I'm not bringing out
> here. Please bring out any issues you see associated with this for
> discussion.
It depends on how we view the relationship between libgcj and
Classpath. If we want to emphasize that these classes are specific to
the classpath implementation then we can use gnu.classpath. But
personally I see nothing wrong with gnu.java for
library-implementation-specific classes that are not specific to gcj.
Classes that are not dependent on the specific vm or gcj compiler
technology should be in gnu.java (or whatever name we choose).
Classes that are specific to libgcj should remain gnu.gcj.
My opnion is quite tentative. My suggestion is to keep things is
gnu.java and gnu.gcj for now. We can move things around later when
we've got some more feeling for what makes sense.
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bothner.com/~per/
