+1 On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Michael MacFadden < [email protected]> wrote:
> I think at the top level, org.apache.wave seems acceptable to all. > > ~Michael > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Paulo Pires wrote: > > > I agree with org.apache.wave, it makes perfect sense. > > > > Regarding modules, I for one would like to see, at least ,the following > > modules, if they are to exist: > > * org.apache.wave.csprotocol - client/server protocol > > * org.apache.wave.api - Robot and Gadget APIs and eventually the much > > wanted client API > > * org.apache.wave.server - the server (concurrencycontrol, federation, > > model, etc.) > > * org.apache.wave.webclient - the GWT webclient > > > > Cheers, > > PP > > > > On 15/06/12 16:23, Lennard de Rijk wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Michael MacFadden < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> We are selecting the top level maven group id and wanted to get some > >>> feedback. There are two thoughts: > >>> > >>> > >>> 1) Very top level group id. I am thinking that everything coming out > of > >>> the apache wave project could be: > >>> > >>> org.apache.wave > >>> > >>> > >>> 2) Wave in a Box group id I am thinking potentially: > >>> > >>> org.apache.wave.wiab > >>> > >>> > >> I would go with box instead of wiab. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> The rationale being the long term we hope that the wave project might > >>> produce gadgets robots, extensions and stuff beyond just wiab. We > have not > >>> discussed the final module structure under this namespace. > >>> > >>> Comments welcome. > >>> > >>> ~Michael > > > > -- > > Paulo Pires > > > >
