(sorry for the delay) On Thu, 2026-09-03 at 14:39 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2026/08/31 12:39:45 Robert Munteanu wrote: > > ... > > Sure, there's no gate for entering the whiteboard :-) > > > > If this is a zero-dep library you should probably use > > 'org.apache.sling.commons.....' since there is no requirement to > > use > > Sling. > > ... > > ...so > > org.apache.sling.commons.structured-fields > > ? > > (with "sling"???)
Yes, we always use the org.apache.sling prefix, so take your pick from - org.apache.sling.commons.http-structured-fields - org.apache.sling.commons.http.structured-fields or anything else that seems appropriate and starts with org.apache.sling.commons . > > > Briefly looking at the code, this looks like functionality for > > Sling > > applications that work with HTTP headers in particular, rather than > > an > > addition to the Sling Engine. Is my understanding correct?> ... > > Yes. > > FWIW: does using the whiteboard give me any advantage with respect to > later promotion to a proper Sling project? It clarifies the intent of the code ending up in an ASF project. For smaller projects I think that's a non-issue but for 'significant' ones from multiple authors then we need to follow the IP clearance process, like we did e.g. with SDI [1]. We usually push to the whiteboard without any process and then announce the intention when creating a git repository. See also [2]. Thanks, Robert [1]: https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/sling-dynamic-includes.html [2]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/SLING/pages/75957583/Using+Git+with+Sling
