+1 for renaming packages now. We might consider having a look at the examples to make sure we have covered off-heap and integrated security.
-- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer - Gemfire Product Manager Mobile: 631-835-4771 On Sep 2, 2016 9:47 AM, "Dan Smith" <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +1 For renaming the packages. It would be really nice to graduate ASAP! Is > there anything else from a code perspective that we need to do before > graduation? If so we should also get that in 1.0. > > It would be nice to get a few more examples in the codebase for 1.0. We > should probably just generally review the documentation we're shipping with > 1.0. Actually, it would be nice if the docs hosted on > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/ could get incorporated as well (I think > pivotal is still planning on donating those docs?), but I don't think we > should hold up 1.0 or graduation based on that. > > We should probably review our dependencies and update anything that's out > of date for 1.0. > > We should also coordinate the package renaming with Spring Data Geode. > > -Dan > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Greg Chase <g...@gregchase.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > with one exception: we need to rename our source packages to > > > ‘org.apache.geode’ [3]. > > > > > > I think we should move forward with package renaming *now* and include > > > that in the scope for the 1.0.0-incubating release. > > > > > > As previously discussed [4] we’d like to preserve protocol > compatibility > > > for existing users of client/server and WAN. This should only affect a > > > handful of classes that would remain in the ‘com.gemstone.gemfire’ > > > namespace (we should identify those soon). > > > > > > > Agreed. Now is the time. Later is always worse then now when it occurs. > > >
