Hi All,
All of the restructuring discussed has been taken care of. Please
review and provide feedback. Once we have this ironed out, we can begin
working on making the server type work.
Take care,
Jeremy
On 2/14/07, Jeremy Whitlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sachin,
That sounds like what we mentioned last night. I will make those
changes today unless you want to do it. :)
Take care,
Jeremy
On 2/14/07, Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The only structure in my opinion that needs to really be followed is
> the package names inside a given plugin should match its plugin
> name. UI plugins should always end in .ui. Non-UI plugins usually
> end in .core. And the plugin name should start with the organization
> (org.eclipse, or in this case org.apache.openejb.. ) Other then that,
> its not necessary to use the same ids or anything from Eclipse. This
> is an Apache project, so you can define your own conventions for
> plugin names.
>
> So I suggest something like the following to start.
>
> org.apache.openejb.something.core
> org.apache.openejb.something.ui
> org.apache.openejb.runtime.v1 (this is a bundle that would be a
> wrapper for openejb jars that other plugins would need)
>
> For "something", in the past I've preferred using "st" (server
> tools), so org.apache.openejb.st.core.
>
> -sachin
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2007, at 1:53 AM, Raj Saini wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > I was looking at the existing server plugins in Eclipse WTP. Should
> > we not have the similar structure as existing plugins?
> >
> > Also, existing plugins in eclipse are under JST. Should we follow
> > the same convention for naming OpenEJB eclipse plugin?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Raj
>
>
