> 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
Why do you want to use the redundant 'http'? Alternatively, one could use org.apache.httpcomponents.core5. Michael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
