Re: Re: Re: HC 5.0: co-location with HC 4.x

2015-11-20 Thread Michael Osipov
> On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 12:42 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 23:27 +, sebb wrote:
> > > > On 19 November 2015 at 21:17, Michael Osipov  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Am 2015-11-19 um 12:32 schrieb Oleg Kalnichevski:
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > First of all, I wouldn't use any of those. (Currently referring to 
> > > > > package
> > > > > names only). Artifact ids are a different story.
> > > > >
> > > > > org.apache.http: that is too general and confuses me with Apache HTTP
> > > > > Server.
> > > > > org.apache.http.hc: http seems redundant here due to hc (http 
> > > > > components).
> > > > > org.apache.hc.http: same here.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would do:
> > > > >
> > > > > HC Core: org.apache.hc.core5
> > > > > HC Client: org.apache.hc.client5
> > > > > HC Async Cilent: org.apache.hc.asyncclient5
> > > > >
> > > > > Clean and simple. Each project would be scoped in its namespace. 
> > > > > Picking up
> > > > > sebb's opinion, we even reflect the HTTP domain in the package name.
> > > > 
> > > > It's not just my _opinion_.
> > > > We cannot freely choose the package name, because we are not the only
> > > > Java project in the world, nor even in the org.apache namespace.
> > > > 
> > > > Likewise we cannot use the domain com.oracle or com.ibm or even 
> > > > com.apache.
> > > > We MUST use the ASF domain as the package name prefix or there is a
> > > > risk of clashes with 3rd party software.
> > > > 
> > > > org.apache.hc should be OK, since we already use HC for the website.
> > > > It's very unlikely that any other ASF project will be named HC.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Would this be all right for everyone?
> > > 
> > > org.apache.hc.core5.http
> > 
> > Why do you want to use the redundant 'http'?
> 
> While not very likely we might have non HTTP protocol support as well,
> such as Websockets.

I see but WebSockets share no common code with HTTP except the initial 
handshake.
I would rather see this as another top level project because HttpClient's API is
highly optimized for HTTP and not a general-purpose one like Commons VFS.

Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org



Re: Re: Re: HC 5.0: co-location with HC 4.x

2015-11-20 Thread Oleg Kalnichevski
On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 15:13 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 12:42 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 23:27 +, sebb wrote:
> > > > > On 19 November 2015 at 21:17, Michael Osipov  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Am 2015-11-19 um 12:32 schrieb Oleg Kalnichevski:

...

> > > > Would this be all right for everyone?
> > > > 
> > > > org.apache.hc.core5.http
> > > 
> > > Why do you want to use the redundant 'http'?
> > 
> > While not very likely we might have non HTTP protocol support as well,
> > such as Websockets.
> 
> I see but WebSockets share no common code with HTTP except the initial 
> handshake.
> I would rather see this as another top level project because HttpClient's API 
> is
> highly optimized for HTTP and not a general-purpose one like Commons VFS.
> 

Project charter allows us to pursue development of a component toolset
'focused on HTTP and associated protocols'.

I also can well imagine SSL related components being in a separate
namespace like 'org.apache.hc.core5.ssl'

Oleg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org