Sander Striker wrote:
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 October 2002 01:18
[...]
To quote Justins commit msg: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.
"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.
I agree that what you say is the most sensible and correct way...
The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
Defining a different namespace will just make things easier, by avoiding stupid discussions like the one that is happening now, because there *are* people that just want to break balls as we say.
IMHO using
org.apache.common.*
is a possible solution.
Also, when I say common_s_ I kept making errors in declarations because I expected "common" since it's a "common" namespace, not a "commons" namespace.
2c
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------