Hi Martin, Do you think changing it to something more specific like "utilitytype" or "utiltype" would make more sense? I suppose that sis/util/type kind of knocks that out but still...
Just thinking out loud here. Adam On Dec 8, 2012, at 4:39 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote: > Hello all > > The commits in the last few days included: > > Implementations of interfaces derived from ISO 19103: AbstractName, > LocalName, ScopedName, MemberName, TypeName. Unfortunately, those objects are > not easy to understand, since the ISO 19103 specification is not very > explicit. But they appear in XML documents, so we have to support them in > some way... The package javadoc does it best for trying to explain them: > > https://builds.apache.org/job/sis-jdk7/site/apidocs/org/apache/sis/util/type/package-summary.html > > I'm uncomfortable with the "type" package name. The current content is more > about naming (indeed, the package name in Geotoolkit.org was "naming"), but > with the addition of Type, RecordType, RecordSchema and Record classes from > ISO 19103, the package starts looking a bit like the java.lang.Class and > Field architecture. I have been unable to find something better than "type" > for now, but I would still like to find a better none. > > > The other commits are in the internal packages. This is a set of JAXB > adapters for marshalling/unmarshalling the ISO objects. For now just the > basic classes have been committed. The package names try to follow the XML > prefixes used in the ISO standards, e.g. "jaxb.gmd" contains adapters related > to objects to be written in the "gmd" namespace, etc. It is not easy to get a > big picture of those adapters neither. We tried hard to make them as > straightforward as possible without too much explosion of the amount of > classes, but the ISO 19139 specification still a quite convolved one... > > Martin >
