I encourage the use of our name space as "org.apache.harmony" for three reasons to start out with: (1) simplicity of identification by _any_ interested party anywhere, and (2) this is the requested format in Java development guidelines as they have been developed over the life of the Java language, thus it is the conventional wisdom as we now understand it, and-- most of all-- (3) if the ASF is going to do this new implementation of Java, any significant deviation from this format, thus colliding with reason #1 and #2 above, will surely be seen by the industry as a departure from Java standards, thus very likely lowering the credibility of the Harmony project in the eyes of the industry overall, meaning lowering the potential for long-term success of the Harmony project from the time such a departure is agreed upon. Not to be a nay-sayer, but I think that this standard, being as well entrenched as it is, has some merits to it, both intrinsically by its domain name style of structure and popularly because the standard is long simce in place at this time. Not that I am opposed to other ideas, but I think this one should stay with us.
Dan Lydick > [Original Message] > From: Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 1/18/06 5:42:57 AM > Subject: [classlib] Java namespace in org.apache.harmony > > I changed thread name to keep this issue from getting buried in the > security2 discussion (and get it out of there...) I also added > [classlib] in the subject to help people sort things out... I plan to > use [classlib:security2] for more disucssion about my sec2 problems... > > "org.apache.harmony" == o.a.h for short is the root of our project java > namespace. > > Should we consider > > o.a.h.classlib > > for the classlibrary work? We have no reason to now, and the extremos > will tell us not to do it unless we need it, but I can easily imagine us > needing it, and it will be less of a royal PITA to do later.... > > geir
