Well I am new in this business, and I have not a serious knowledge of general picture, but the first option inside Justin's comment looks right for me.
org.geotools.xml.filter.v1_0 org.geotools.xml.filter.v1_1 org.geotools.xml.gml.v2 org.geotools.xml.gml.v3 Maybe we need to add version for "org.geotools.filter.text" package, something like: org.geotools.filter.text.cql.v2_0 It would be only a convention, because we only have one implementation actually. By other hand, after our last conversation with Jody about the "best package" for CQL we move the cql to "org.geotools.text.filter". Is there a mistake in "Description Section"? (swap text and filter) http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Provide+common+parsers+in+a+consistent+fashion Cheers -- Mauricio Pazos On Monday 19 March 2007 18:54, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > > So what is your package naming conventions? > > Are you asking now? I dont really have one. the one in the proposal is > good, but does not take versions into account. The comment i made lists > two possibilities. > > > Cheers, > > Jody > > > >>> We are not; can you read and comment on the proposal please. > >> > >> Sure, proposal updated with comments about packing naming structure > >> with regard to version numbers. > > > > !DSPAM:4007,45fecdc6241011194215290! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
