Re: Incubating java projects
On 22 Dec 2005, at 06:36, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 19:47 -0800, Greg Stein wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:16:13AM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? I would say yes. Big +1. We of course cannot control standard APIs like org.w3c.dom, or javax.* etc., but for software that is developed at Apache the Java packaging should always be org.apache.*. IMO that's the signal to the world of Java programmers that they're using ASF code and its a valuable signal that we must not lose. Hurting current users with the change cost is a good thing in this case IMO: that way they too realize that there's a big change in the project and that its now an ASF project. Great point Sanjiva - am completely sold now, many thanks. Package renaming for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix coming up real soon Thanks everyone for your comments. We should maybe capture some of the points raised in this thread into the incubation guide? James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Incubating java projects
James Strachan wrote: I don't see why we need to force a major package name change on our users. Branding and consistency. A wrapper package can be used to deprecate the old names. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Incubating java projects
Greg Stein wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? I would say yes. As would (and did) most others. We should add this to the Incubation checklist. I don't want to see another mistake made as was apparently made with iBatis. And, as Jim noted, this should go into the Incubation Guide. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 12/21/2005 3:13 AM, Leo Simons wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59:11AM +, James Strachan wrote: On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had the need to codify it... Yeah - I've never seen it actually written down anywhere noticed that the Roller project hadn't switched domains yet. https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/src/org/ I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name is owned ( we'd be happy to donate to Apache) I don't see why we need to force a major package name change on our users. If it is mandatory then hey we'll comply I'm just questioning who made this decision and why? Sun Microsystems in their coding standards :-). It was in retrospect not such a good idea perhaps... One thing we *can't* have is trademarks that aren't owned by the ASF (registered or not), so *if* the package isn't changed then yes the org.roller name and domain *should* probably come under full control of the ASF (I'll say that's a good idea anyway). I think the package name change is currently not mandatory, but perhaps it should be. FWIW, ActiveMQ and ServiceMix are currently in the process of being transfered. Regards, Alan
Re: Incubating java projects
On 12/22/05, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Thanks everyone for your comments. We should maybe capture some of the points raised in this thread into the incubation guide? +1 submit a patch ;) (been waiting years to say that to james) AUIU the consensus seems to be that the documentation needs lots of work so i don't think anyone would have any objections to you diving in (would they?) - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had the need to codify it... Yeah - I've never seen it actually written down anywhere noticed that the Roller project hadn't switched domains yet. https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/src/org/ I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name is owned ( we'd be happy to donate to Apache) I don't see why we need to force a major package name change on our users. If it is mandatory then hey we'll comply I'm just questioning who made this decision and why? James On Dec 20, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59:11AM +, James Strachan wrote: On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had the need to codify it... Yeah - I've never seen it actually written down anywhere noticed that the Roller project hadn't switched domains yet. https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/src/org/ I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name is owned ( we'd be happy to donate to Apache) I don't see why we need to force a major package name change on our users. If it is mandatory then hey we'll comply I'm just questioning who made this decision and why? Sun Microsystems in their coding standards :-). It was in retrospect not such a good idea perhaps... One thing we *can't* have is trademarks that aren't owned by the ASF (registered or not), so *if* the package isn't changed then yes the org.roller name and domain *should* probably come under full control of the ASF (I'll say that's a good idea anyway). I think the package name change is currently not mandatory, but perhaps it should be. - LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 12/21/05, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name is owned ( we'd be happy to donate to Apache) I don't see why we need to force a major package name change on our users. If it is mandatory then hey we'll comply I'm just questioning who made this decision and why? Managing additional domains is most possibly a burden for infra. Jochen -- Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat. (Mark Twain) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:13, Leo Simons wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59:11AM +, James Strachan wrote: On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had the need to codify it... Yeah - I've never seen it actually written down anywhere noticed that the Roller project hadn't switched domains yet. https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/src/org/ I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name is owned ( we'd be happy to donate to Apache) I don't see why we need to force a major package name change on our users. If it is mandatory then hey we'll comply I'm just questioning who made this decision and why? Sun Microsystems in their coding standards :-). It was in retrospect not such a good idea perhaps... Suns coding standards wasn't my question - it was whether or not org.apache. should be a mandatory prefix on all Java package names at Apache. One thing we *can't* have is trademarks that aren't owned by the ASF (registered or not), I didn't think trademarks are linked to Java package names are they? so *if* the package isn't changed then yes the org.roller name and domain *should* probably come under full control of the ASF (I'll say that's a good idea anyway). Agreed I think the package name change is currently not mandatory, but perhaps it should be. I'm not so sure. There's already various stuff at Apache that breaks this rule (SAX, DOM, JCP APIs such as stuff in geronimo-spec, the SCA specification in the Tuscany project; I'm sure there are other examples, this was off the top of my head). Seems a bit silly to introduce a new rule that we can't ever fully comply with for no technical reason. James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:40 AM, James Strachan wrote: I think the package name change is currently not mandatory, but perhaps it should be. I'm not so sure. There's already various stuff at Apache that breaks this rule (SAX, DOM, JCP APIs such as stuff in geronimo- spec, the SCA specification in the Tuscany project; I'm sure there are other examples, this was off the top of my head). Seems a bit silly to introduce a new rule that we can't ever fully comply with for no technical reason. To be clear, the other namespaces are required by specs (SAX, DOM, J2EE, SCA...) its not a choice. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
James, To be blunt, what is being done here? here's what i see as a casual observer to the infra list. - A bunch of projects are getting into Apache controlled by the same set of people (ServiceMix/ActiveMQ/XBean/WADI) - Folks are getting completely unrelated projects into an umbrella project Geronimo - Folks involved want everything under the sun to be supported by infra folks - Folks dont want to use incubator.apache.org as the mailing list domain - Folks dont want to even change their package name - Folks just want to do what they want to do regardless of precedent Where is this heading? I am afraid to ask. thanks, dims On 12/21/05, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had the need to codify it... Yeah - I've never seen it actually written down anywhere noticed that the Roller project hadn't switched domains yet. https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/src/org/ I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name is owned ( we'd be happy to donate to Apache) I don't see why we need to force a major package name change on our users. If it is mandatory then hey we'll comply I'm just questioning who made this decision and why? James On Dec 20, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 21 Dec 2005, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote: James, To be blunt, what is being done here? here's what i see as a casual observer to the infra list. - A bunch of projects are getting into Apache controlled by the same set of people (ServiceMix/ActiveMQ/XBean/WADI) Not really; see the committer lists, they are all quite different. But sure there's a bunch of existing apache developers who work on some of those projects along with other Apache projects too. - Folks are getting completely unrelated projects into an umbrella project Geronimo If anything is this an issue for Geronimo PMC not the incubator. Why have you not brought this up there as you are a member of the PMC? - Folks involved want everything under the sun to be supported by infra folks Huh? So far the ServiceMix ActiveMQ teams have only asked for subversion mail :) - Folks dont want to use incubator.apache.org as the mailing list domain See the other thread for that - the arguments for and against have been fairly well articulated. - Folks dont want to even change their package name I'm just asking an honest question here - I've already said, if there really is a rule we'll follow it. I just want to know is there a rule and if there is why does it exist. - Folks just want to do what they want to do regardless of precedent Hardly - this is why we're asking for guidance on the incubator list to see what we should do. James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
Davanum Srinivas wrote: James, Incubation process is not set in stone. Just last week, we voted on standardizing the mailing list names. So it is a mix of good judgement, experience, consensus and rules. If you insist we can put start a VOTE on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you are part of that as well. I did bring up issues on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing lists and we resolved it. As to related-ness. I'd even be ok with ActiveMQ as a TLP or ServiceMix as a TLP. But it does not seem right to be part of Geronimo as a sub project. I'd prefer ServiceMix folks to work more closely with WS folks or even move to WS-land. But that's another story. FYI, am and Guillaume Nodet did work during the hackathon on some stuff. But i'd like to see more closer cooperation. Especially for items that you need and those that affect Geronimo like JAX-WS 2.0/JAXB. It's not like we want all ws stuff to be in ws pmc. JSR 181 in Beehive and WSRP4J in portals are good examples of sister projects that still work closely with Axis dev folks. Also, what does community means? does it mean existing folks who are working on the projects already at codehaus? Especially when Syanpse and Axis are mentioned in the proposal and we don't see anyone show up on the dev mailing lists, it's just fishy to say the least. FYI, this is not the first time i had to do this. I did this with beehive too. See my post in Oct 2004 articulating the same concerns with beehive. First, I don't know what you are expecting regarding Syanpse and Axis. Synapse hasn't even done a milestone yet so there isn't much to integrate with JBI. Axis 2 has done mile stones but enough people are using it yet for the SM team to spend their time on it. And I think if you'll look closely it is already possible to work with Axis 1.x services in SM. Second, I don't think you can expect SM to come to you and flop a bunch of code out there which makes the integration perfect. I originally came to the ServiceMix guys with XFire integration and thats how it got integrated. That in turn got me involved with ServiceMix and Guillaume in turn has helped XFire a little. Its reciprocal. Also, I hope you aren't implying that ServiceMix has created an exclusive community of Codehaus people. I have seen the ServiceMix team be more than helpful to myself and to others who joined in both in and outside the Codehaus/Apache communitys. In fact, they MUST. ServiceMix's job is to not play favorites and integrate with everyone. Why must ServiceMix work extra close with the WS PMC? I'm sure when people start needing integration with WS-* projects that will happen. Thats how open source works right? Cheers, - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions LLC http://netzooid.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
Dan, Then at least the proposal should be honest enough, not to name names. If we don't know what ServiceMix's needs are, we cannot make sure the design of Synapse will fit right with ServiceMix. No one is asking for a code drop. Asking for involvement, i think that's what a community means. getting involved. SM did not have to come into Apache to increase cooperation. It could have been done before. Why talk publicly about strong ties to Tuscany/Synapse in public forums and blogs (example - http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=38049) when there is no intention in the field to community building aspects? BTW, Here at Apache community building involves hanging out on mailing lists *NOT* IRC. I can point you to several folks who have strong reservations about IRC usage in certain projects. Thanks, dims On 12/21/05, Dan Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Davanum Srinivas wrote: James, Incubation process is not set in stone. Just last week, we voted on standardizing the mailing list names. So it is a mix of good judgement, experience, consensus and rules. If you insist we can put start a VOTE on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you are part of that as well. I did bring up issues on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing lists and we resolved it. As to related-ness. I'd even be ok with ActiveMQ as a TLP or ServiceMix as a TLP. But it does not seem right to be part of Geronimo as a sub project. I'd prefer ServiceMix folks to work more closely with WS folks or even move to WS-land. But that's another story. FYI, am and Guillaume Nodet did work during the hackathon on some stuff. But i'd like to see more closer cooperation. Especially for items that you need and those that affect Geronimo like JAX-WS 2.0/JAXB. It's not like we want all ws stuff to be in ws pmc. JSR 181 in Beehive and WSRP4J in portals are good examples of sister projects that still work closely with Axis dev folks. Also, what does community means? does it mean existing folks who are working on the projects already at codehaus? Especially when Syanpse and Axis are mentioned in the proposal and we don't see anyone show up on the dev mailing lists, it's just fishy to say the least. FYI, this is not the first time i had to do this. I did this with beehive too. See my post in Oct 2004 articulating the same concerns with beehive. First, I don't know what you are expecting regarding Syanpse and Axis. Synapse hasn't even done a milestone yet so there isn't much to integrate with JBI. Axis 2 has done mile stones but enough people are using it yet for the SM team to spend their time on it. And I think if you'll look closely it is already possible to work with Axis 1.x services in SM. Second, I don't think you can expect SM to come to you and flop a bunch of code out there which makes the integration perfect. I originally came to the ServiceMix guys with XFire integration and thats how it got integrated. That in turn got me involved with ServiceMix and Guillaume in turn has helped XFire a little. Its reciprocal. Also, I hope you aren't implying that ServiceMix has created an exclusive community of Codehaus people. I have seen the ServiceMix team be more than helpful to myself and to others who joined in both in and outside the Codehaus/Apache communitys. In fact, they MUST. ServiceMix's job is to not play favorites and integrate with everyone. Why must ServiceMix work extra close with the WS PMC? I'm sure when people start needing integration with WS-* projects that will happen. Thats how open source works right? Cheers, - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions LLC http://netzooid.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 21 Dec 2005, at 14:42, Davanum Srinivas wrote: James, Incubation process is not set in stone. Just last week, we voted on standardizing the mailing list names. So it is a mix of good judgement, experience, consensus and rules. If you insist we can put start a VOTE on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you are part of that as well. I did bring up issues on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing lists and we resolved it. As to related-ness. I'd even be ok with ActiveMQ as a TLP or ServiceMix as a TLP. Those are options we can explore in the future; for now the ActiveMQ and ServiceMix teams are more than happy with Geronimo as the sponsoring PMC. But it does not seem right to be part of Geronimo as a sub project. I disagree. ActiveMQ is a core piece of Geronimo and one of the core dependencies of ServiceMix; ServiceMix also makes heavy use of XBean and other Geronimo features (JTA, JCA) together with being integrated into Geronimo. So apart from community overlap there is currently a greater technical dependency between ServiceMix and Geronimo than ServiceMIx and WS. Though that doesn't mean ServiceMix will not work with other WS projects - e.g. we're already using Axis in ServiceMix. I'm sure there will be some Tuscany - ServiceMIx collaboration soon and I'm interested in seeing a Synapse - ServiceMix bridge of some kind as well. I'd prefer ServiceMix folks to work more closely with WS folks or even move to WS-land. But that's another story. Sure - we know - you've said this before and it'll happen. I don't think the sponsor PMC or whether or not ServiceMix is a TLP or part of Geronimo or WS is gonna change that too much. FYI, am and Guillaume Nodet did work during the hackathon on some stuff. But i'd like to see more closer cooperation. See - already moving ServiceMix to Apache has led to some new collaboration that might not have happened otherwise :) Especially for items that you need and those that affect Geronimo like JAX-WS 2.0/JAXB. It's not like we want all ws stuff to be in ws pmc. I thought you just said you wanted ServiceMix to move to WS :) JSR 181 in Beehive and WSRP4J in portals are good examples of sister projects that still work closely with Axis dev folks. Also, what does community means? does it mean existing folks who are working on the projects already at codehaus? Especially when Syanpse and Axis are mentioned in the proposal and we don't see anyone show up on the dev mailing lists, it's just fishy to say the least. Dims could you please give us a bit of time to get ServiceMix's house in order first before we can start collaborating with other projects in earnest. Don't worry there will be collaboration. James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:45, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Dan, Then at least the proposal should be honest enough, not to name names. If we don't know what ServiceMix's needs are, we cannot make sure the design of Synapse will fit right with ServiceMix. No one is asking for a code drop. Asking for involvement, i think that's what a community means. getting involved. SM did not have to come into Apache to increase cooperation. It could have been done before. Why talk publicly about strong ties to Tuscany/Synapse in public forums and blogs (example - http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=38049) when there is no intention in the field to community building aspects? Just because its not happened yet doesn't mean the intention is not there. Would it make you happier if we took the names of projects we'd like to collaborate with from the proposal until that collaboration actually starts? James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 18:02 +, James Strachan wrote: Dims could you please give us a bit of time to get ServiceMix's house in order first before we can start collaborating with other projects in earnest. Don't worry there will be collaboration. +1! Sanjiva. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:16:13AM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? I would say yes. Consider five years down the road. The pre-Incubator life of a project is a distant memory at that point. You're going to confuse the heck out of users if the namespace is *not* org.apache. I believe that an incoming project better have a *very* strong rationale for sticking to their pre-Apache namespace. A reason that can last five years. Ten years. An example for consideration: It will hurt our users is valid, but how many and how badly will it hurt them? Can projects that use the old namespace just stick to the old codebase? If they want new stuff, then couldn't they just update their references? Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
Yes :) -- dims On 12/20/05, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had the need to codify it... On Dec 20, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
Of course, the answer may not be that simple if you have an existing user base that programs against your APIs. I think it would be wise to do this as soon as possible and judge the impact. We found we had to write a couple of compatibility interfaces under the old package scheme to retain binary compatbility, while requiring those upgrading to change package names. - Brett On 12/21/05, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes :) -- dims On 12/20/05, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
Right - I would assume you provide some kind of adapter package so existing code works, and deprecate it... On Dec 20, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Of course, the answer may not be that simple if you have an existing user base that programs against your APIs. I think it would be wise to do this as soon as possible and judge the impact. We found we had to write a couple of compatibility interfaces under the old package scheme to retain binary compatbility, while requiring those upgrading to change package names. - Brett On 12/21/05, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes :) -- dims On 12/20/05, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
