> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 21 October 2002 01:18
[...] >> That's a good point, but I suspect that the new Commons won't be stealing >> the bottom-level names from Jakarta. For example, if... >> >> "org.apache.commons.Jfooness" is a Jakarta Commons project, then Commons >> will just have to be careful not to reuse that prefix. To quote Justins commit msg: "I think the namespace pollution argument is petty. If they followed the true Java standard, jakarta-commons should have used org.apache.jakarta.commons rather than org.apache.commons. Too bad." I have to agree. Why was the 'jakarta' part dropped? On the reorg list there was much talk about the Jakarta brand. Why wasn't it included in the naming scheme? > The problem here is that jakarta-commons project names are intended to be > 'bland' (See the commons charter). Thus we have names such as lang, > collections, io. These are names that might equally apply to other > programming languages. Why would you get namespace collisions between different projects (in different languages)? And where would it hurt? Can you give an example? > My opinion is that putting code from different languages into the same CVS > is just going to hurt. It certainly doesn't have to. Sander
