Mark Brouwer wrote:
Probably the only disagreement will be with regard to the time at which
we should conduct such an effort (hopefully at that time I can take a
long holiday and we can find one person we supply plenty of beer who is
going to do the job (I think it ain't something that allows for a lot of
parallelism, but no doubt one of the Sun people can tell from previous
experience what it involves).
The only thing that I'd like to say about the repackaging issue is that we might
just consider using subclassing and/or proxy implementations of the same class
names in org.apache as the initial thing to do, so that both namespaces are
visible. Putting deprecated notices on the com.sun.jini stuff would then be the
indicator that new code shouldn't be using it. It might also be worth changing
the packaging on the existing code to org.apache and using subclassing/proxy
implementations to recreate the com.sun.jini classes. I just feel that there
would be less potential impact to do the "org.apache is proxy impl" first so
that less code relationships change and the new namespace is available. Later,
we can do the swap so that org.apache is the real code with com.sun.jini
proxying to it.
> It will also be a good moment to sort out
> our whitespace issues (this one is for you Gregg :-P ), etc.
I have shared my opinion about this, and apparently many people started
programming after disk space was no longer a concern so that the reduction in
whitespace file space consumption was not a problem :-) I appreciate tabs
because then I can set tab stops to whatever I like and the file is
appropriately structured. Others appreciate whitespace so that they see the
file the way everyone else sees it. Still others don't know what they
appreciate because they've always done it how their editor/IDE environment
introduces these things. Let's just move on and decide on something that will
unify it, and I'll figure out how to deal with it (probably a perforce branch).
Gregg Wonderly
