Thanks Martin. I've been trying to keep up with all the commits coming in but there are so many of them ;-) I like the naming convention you chose. I think it *does* make sense to go with "iso" as we are very much interested in maintaining the highest degree of standardization.
Adam On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote: > Hello all > > I went ahead and renamed the "org.apache.sis.util.type"package as > "org.apache.sis.util.iso". Will not totally true, maybe being 80% true (or > even 95% true if we consider that InternationalString is similar in purpose > to <gmd:textGroup> in ISO 19139) is close enough... > > Thanks for feedbacks, > > Martin > > > > Le 09/12/12 06:04, Adam Estrada a écrit : >> 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: >>> 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. >
