Dan, We agreed to use org.apache.harmony as our package name prefixes, and even refined that with the following guidelines in the class library: http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/pkgnaming.html
Regards, Tim Dan Lydick wrote: > 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: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org> >> 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 > > > > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
