RE: Reconsider how to layout kerby-pkix

["Zheng, Kai" <ka...@intel.com>]

After some investigation about how to layout the relationships among the children modules, I thought it would be better to do the split after RC2 when we get PKINIT fully implemented and thus have clearer ideas for the kerby-pkix module. 

So for now I only removed the commons-ssl library from the module as cleanup to prepare for the RC2 release.

Thanks.

Regards,
Kai

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:46 PM
To: kerby@directory.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reconsider how to layout kerby-pkix

Le 30/12/15 13:52, Zheng, Kai a écrit :
> Thanks for the comment Emmanuel. 
>
>>> I would drop the 'pkix-' prefix, assuming the modules will be under the pkix module anyway
> I understand this sounds good in a style (used by Directory main), though Kerby goes in the other, you might check it in the kerby-kerb module and see its children. The style is often seen in other projects, and hard to say which one is better, but one rational for the Kerby style is, the child module may be separately referenced and mentioned by other projects as standalone library so out of the parent context. So I would suggest we use the style consistently.

no problem at all. Go for kerby-xxx.

Re: Reconsider how to layout kerby-pkix

[Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>]

Le 03/01/16 13:44, Zheng, Kai a écrit :
> After some investigation about how to layout the relationships among the children modules, I thought it would be better to do the split after RC2 when we get PKINIT fully implemented and thus have clearer ideas for the kerby-pkix module. 

+1 to that.
>
> So for now I only removed the commons-ssl library from the module as cleanup to prepare for the RC2 release.

Okie.