You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> on 2005/04/12 13:20:37 UTC
Plugin naming conventions
As has been agreed all plugins are to be renamed so that they conform
with our naming convention. However, is the naming convention right?
Currently we say:
org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-input
org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-output
org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-internal
Wouldn't it make more sense as:
org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.NAME
org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.NAME
org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.NAME
Ross
Re: Plugin naming conventions
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense as:
>
>
>
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.NAME
>
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.NAME
>
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.NAME
+1
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: Plugin naming conventions
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 09:54 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
>
>>Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>>As has been agreed all plugins are to be renamed so that they conform
>>>with our naming convention. However, is the naming convention right?
>>>
>>>Currently we say:
>>>
>>>org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-input
>>>
>>>org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-output
>>>
>>>org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-internal
>>>
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it make more sense as:
>>>
>>>
>>>org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.NAME
>>>
>>>org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.NAME
>>>
>>>org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.NAME
>>
>>I agree. Actually, i had already wondered that when last
>>we spoke about the naming convention, but i just assumed
>>that there was a reason for the former.
>>
>>--David
>
>
>
> WHY do we want to include input/... in the naming?
Because we can have an input and an output of the same format. For
example, OpenOffice has an input and there is an Output in whiteboard
(which doesn't work yet, but one day it will).
Ross
Re: Plugin naming conventions
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 09:54 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > As has been agreed all plugins are to be renamed so that they conform
> > with our naming convention. However, is the naming convention right?
> >
> > Currently we say:
> >
> > org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-input
> >
> > org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-output
> >
> > org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-internal
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't it make more sense as:
> >
> >
> > org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.NAME
> >
> > org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.NAME
> >
> > org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.NAME
>
> I agree. Actually, i had already wondered that when last
> we spoke about the naming convention, but i just assumed
> that there was a reason for the former.
>
> --David
WHY do we want to include input/... in the naming?
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: Plugin naming conventions
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> As has been agreed all plugins are to be renamed so that they conform
> with our naming convention. However, is the naming convention right?
>
> Currently we say:
>
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-input
>
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-output
>
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.NAME-internal
>
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense as:
>
>
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.NAME
>
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.NAME
>
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.NAME
I agree. Actually, i had already wondered that when last
we spoke about the naming convention, but i just assumed
that there was a reason for the former.
--David