On 11/20/2015 04:20 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 23:27 +0000, sebb wrote:
On 19 November 2015 at 21:17, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote:
Am 2015-11-19 um 12:32 schrieb Oleg Kalnichevski:
...
First of all, I wouldn't use any of those. (Currently referring to package
names only). Artifact ids are a different story.
org.apache.http: that is too general and confuses me with Apache HTTP
Server.
org.apache.http.hc: http seems redundant here due to hc (http components).
org.apache.hc<n>.http: same here.
I would do:
HC Core: org.apache.hc.core5
HC Client: org.apache.hc.client5
HC Async Cilent: org.apache.hc.asyncclient5
Clean and simple. Each project would be scoped in its namespace. Picking up
sebb's opinion, we even reflect the HTTP domain in the package name.
It's not just my _opinion_.
We cannot freely choose the package name, because we are not the only
Java project in the world, nor even in the org.apache namespace.
Likewise we cannot use the domain com.oracle or com.ibm or even com.apache.
We MUST use the ASF domain as the package name prefix or there is a
risk of clashes with 3rd party software.
org.apache.hc should be OK, since we already use HC for the website.
It's very unlikely that any other ASF project will be named HC.
Would this be all right for everyone?
org.apache.hc.core5.http
+1
asankha
--
Asankha C. Perera
AdroitLogic, http://adroitlogic.org
http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
