+1 for making changes sooner rather than later. Also, thank you Dan for mentioning this effort will need to coordinated with *Spring Data Geode*.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +1 for renaming the packages > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > +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. > > > > > > > > > > -- -John 503-504-8657 john.blum10101 (skype)
