Aaron, Have I submitted code properly? Still hasn't been pushed... Fun arguing about package names...isn't it? later, Chris --- Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Alex Blewitt wrote: > > 'provider' is too generic a name. Would this mean > 'mail provider'? > > 'session replication provider?' A package without > a definite definition > > isn't going to solve the problems. > > If you look at the spec, there's a section for the > "product > provider" and a section called "tool provider". We > split this into "tool" > (tool provider) and "provider" (product provider), > since at the time it > seemed better than "tool" and "product". Anything > you can some up with to > distinguish "tool" from "product" is good. They > ought to go in different > packages, because they need to go in different JARs. > > > The reason why the 'enterprise', and indeed, > 'deploy' were part of the > > package name were to say that these were relating > to the deployment of > > enterprise code, as opposed to a generic provider. > > Actually, geronimo.enterprise.deploy was chosen > because > "deployment" was taken and the JSR-88 package is > "javax.enterprise.deploy" > so it seemed like mirroring it would be the best > strategy in the short > term. > > Aaron >
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
