Please see the commons charter on naming. Paraphrasing it says that "names should be boring and functional, not clever". jazz is clever ;-( The reasoning is to remove one more barrier to adopting the component. (Note that not every commons component follows the rule, betwixt being a good example)
maybe [sax] for input? (commons-sax) or [fromsax] - (commons-fromsax) maybe [toxml] for output? (commons-toxml) or [tosax]? (commons-tosax) It depends on whether you want to scope/limit yourself to just sax. Should you split? It depends on whether people who use one half are likely to use the other really. Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Florey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > After doing the xmlio google thing I agree that this name is really used in > so many projects that it would be worth to find another one even if I like > it. > As 'xmlio' consists of two parts (importer / exporter) I would recommend > separating them into two tiny components in order to increase reusability. > My favourite name for the importer (sax augmentation) would be 'jazz'. As > you need a sax to play jazz... (Or is it 'just augmented super sax'??) > The exporter could be simply called XMLWriter as this is what it does. > > Finally I'd like to say that I don't think Digester and xmlio are direct > competitors as they are very different: xmlio is a simple sax extension but > has nothing to do with mapping xml to java objects. > So I don't think we get trouble here. > > Regards, > Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
