Randy Watler wrote: > All, > > I voted +1 on this issue, but I assumed that we would not be using > totally unqualified names... that could indeed cause integration > problems. For example, I thought that soemthing like 'j2.page-manager' > seemed short AND isolated to J2. Names like > 'org.apache.jetspped.page.PageManager' are just too long. I am still +1 > provided we have a relatively unique short prefix like 'j2'. > > Randy > > David Le Strat wrote: > >> On simplified naming conventions in the Spring >> configs, I am -1 as well. I agree with Ate and Keith. >> >> --- Ate Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Scott T Weaver wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Yup, see bullet point 5 ;) >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure you two are talking about the same >>> thing here... >>> >>> Is bullet point 5) about the simplified naming >>> conventions in the Spring configs? >>> Or is Raphaël talking about the refactoring of our >>> packages we discussed several weeks ago? >>> >>> For the record: I've decided I'm -1 on the >>> simplified naming conventions in the Spring configs >>> as it kills the namespace benefit which also has >>> been pointed out by Keith Garry Boyce. >>>
I was talking about package reogranisation and not really the spring ids. I'm personnally -0 on changing the IDs : I don't have a strong technical reason as long as we keep namespace separation but that would require to fix Fusion and Graffito that both modify the sprint assembly files. -- Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java http://portals.apache.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
