You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shiro.apache.org by Apache Hudson Server <hu...@hudson.zones.apache.org> on 2009/03/11 19:58:55 UTC

Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

See http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/JSecurity%20-%20ant/38/changes



Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
The package space org.apache.ki.samples.* is ok but my formatter lumps  
the imports in w/ the core imports.


Regards,
Alan

On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:

> I have no issues with that.  But why not org.apache.ki.samples.*?   
> I'm just
> curious...
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera  
> <li...@toolazydogs.com>wrote:
>
>> There's one or two samples that still need to be converted.  I  
>> think I'll
>> have time to finish up tonight.
>>
>> I have one comment/question.  I'm thinking that it might be a good  
>> idea to
>> have samples go into a separate package space other than  
>> org.apache.ki.
>> This makes it crazy obvious as to what are example packages and what
>> packages are part of the project space.  I was thinking of  
>> something like
>> com.acme.sample...  WDYT?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>> Cool. Does that mean all the package refactoring is finished Alan?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Apache Hudson Server <
>>> hudson@hudson.zones.apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> See
>>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/JSecurity%20-%20ant/38/changes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>


Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
+1

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>wrote:

> Agreed.  When the  sample code, especially code that extends/implements
> core code, is in a totally different package space the extensions just leap
> out at you.  This makes things easier to grok.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Erik Beeson wrote:
>
>  As an end user, I think it would be substantially more confusing to have
>> the
>> example project in the same root package as the core code. If you don't
>> like
>> example or acme, maybe just "ki." or "ki.examples." or something so it's
>> still clear what it's associated with. But to put it in the same root
>> package adds confusion for no apparent benefit (it seems to me).
>> --Erik
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Daniel J. Lauk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If I may add my two cents...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no issues with that.  But why not org.apache.ki.samples.*?  I'm
>>>>>
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> curious...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> org.apache.ki.samples sounds good to me. Samples will be found in a
>>>>>
>>>> separate project anyway, so I don't see how it can be a source of
>>> confusion...
>>>
>>> I think it's better to keep the org.apache prefix.
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> cordialement, regards,
>>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>>> www.iktek.com
>>> directory.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Agreed.  When the  sample code, especially code that extends/ 
implements core code, is in a totally different package space the  
extensions just leap out at you.  This makes things easier to grok.


Regards,
Alan

On Mar 11, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Erik Beeson wrote:

> As an end user, I think it would be substantially more confusing to  
> have the
> example project in the same root package as the core code. If you  
> don't like
> example or acme, maybe just "ki." or "ki.examples." or something so  
> it's
> still clear what it's associated with. But to put it in the same root
> package adds confusion for no apparent benefit (it seems to me).
> --Erik
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org 
> >wrote:
>
>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Daniel J. Lauk wrote:
>>>
>>> If I may add my two cents...
>>>>
>>>> I have no issues with that.  But why not  
>>>> org.apache.ki.samples.*?  I'm
>>>>> just
>>>>> curious...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> org.apache.ki.samples sounds good to me. Samples will be found in a
>> separate project anyway, so I don't see how it can be a source of
>> confusion...
>>
>> I think it's better to keep the org.apache prefix.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> cordialement, regards,
>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>> www.iktek.com
>> directory.apache.org
>>
>>
>>


Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by Erik Beeson <er...@gmail.com>.
As an end user, I think it would be substantially more confusing to have the
example project in the same root package as the core code. If you don't like
example or acme, maybe just "ki." or "ki.examples." or something so it's
still clear what it's associated with. But to put it in the same root
package adds confusion for no apparent benefit (it seems to me).
--Erik


On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>wrote:

> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Daniel J. Lauk wrote:
>>
>>  If I may add my two cents...
>>>
>>>  I have no issues with that.  But why not org.apache.ki.samples.*?  I'm
>>>> just
>>>> curious...
>>>>
>>>
>>>  org.apache.ki.samples sounds good to me. Samples will be found in a
> separate project anyway, so I don't see how it can be a source of
> confusion...
>
> I think it's better to keep the org.apache prefix.
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
>

Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Daniel J. Lauk wrote:
>
>> If I may add my two cents...
>>
>>> I have no issues with that.  But why not org.apache.ki.samples.*?  
>>> I'm just
>>> curious...
>>
org.apache.ki.samples sounds good to me. Samples will be found in a 
separate project anyway, so I don't see how it can be a source of 
confusion...

I think it's better to keep the org.apache prefix.

-- 
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org



Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by "Daniel J. Lauk" <da...@gmail.com>.
>> Never the less, I'd rather go for "com.example" or "org.example"
>> (instead of com.acme), as IIRC these domain names are reserved by some
>> RFCs.
>
> I think that they are used extensively in RFC examples, not necessarily
> reserved.   I think that com.acme would be great since it's already used as
> an example.

The example.(com|org|net) ones are reserved. Try surfing both URLs:

http://www.acme.com
http://www.example.com

I just thought if you want to avoid stepping on someones feet and go
through a product name change, it might be worth not to step on
anyone's feet with the examples...

Kind regards,
DJ

PS: Acme created a cool HTTP server...

Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Daniel J. Lauk wrote:

> If I may add my two cents...
>
>> I have no issues with that.  But why not org.apache.ki.samples.*?   
>> I'm just
>> curious...
>
> I don't know about Alan's intentions, but I think it would make it
> easier for new users to distinguish where the sample application ends
> and where Ki begins.
>
> Never the less, I'd rather go for "com.example" or "org.example"
> (instead of com.acme), as IIRC these domain names are reserved by some
> RFCs.

I think that they are used extensively in RFC examples, not  
necessarily reserved.   I think that com.acme would be great since  
it's already used as an example.


Regards,
Alan

>
>
> Best regards,
> DJ
>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com 
>> >wrote:
>>
>>> There's one or two samples that still need to be converted.  I  
>>> think I'll
>>> have time to finish up tonight.
>>>
>>> I have one comment/question.  I'm thinking that it might be a good  
>>> idea to
>>> have samples go into a separate package space other than  
>>> org.apache.ki.
>>>  This makes it crazy obvious as to what are example packages and  
>>> what
>>> packages are part of the project space.  I was thinking of  
>>> something like
>>> com.acme.sample...  WDYT?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>
>>>  Cool. Does that mean all the package refactoring is finished Alan?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Apache Hudson Server <
>>>> hudson@hudson.zones.apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  See
>>>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/JSecurity%20-%20ant/38/changes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>


Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by Les Hazlewood <le...@anjinllc.com>.
Sounds good to me - I agree that it is nice to see the distinction in the
package prefix.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Daniel J. Lauk <da...@gmail.com>wrote:

> If I may add my two cents...
>
> > I have no issues with that.  But why not org.apache.ki.samples.*?  I'm
> just
> > curious...
>
> I don't know about Alan's intentions, but I think it would make it
> easier for new users to distinguish where the sample application ends
> and where Ki begins.
>
> Never the less, I'd rather go for "com.example" or "org.example"
> (instead of com.acme), as IIRC these domain names are reserved by some
> RFCs.
>
> Best regards,
> DJ
>
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> There's one or two samples that still need to be converted.  I think
> I'll
> >> have time to finish up tonight.
> >>
> >> I have one comment/question.  I'm thinking that it might be a good idea
> to
> >> have samples go into a separate package space other than org.apache.ki.
> >>  This makes it crazy obvious as to what are example packages and what
> >> packages are part of the project space.  I was thinking of something
> like
> >> com.acme.sample...  WDYT?
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>
> >>  Cool. Does that mean all the package refactoring is finished Alan?
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Apache Hudson Server <
> >>> hudson@hudson.zones.apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  See
> >>>>
> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/JSecurity%20-%20ant/38/changes
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>

Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by "Daniel J. Lauk" <da...@gmail.com>.
If I may add my two cents...

> I have no issues with that.  But why not org.apache.ki.samples.*?  I'm just
> curious...

I don't know about Alan's intentions, but I think it would make it
easier for new users to distinguish where the sample application ends
and where Ki begins.

Never the less, I'd rather go for "com.example" or "org.example"
(instead of com.acme), as IIRC these domain names are reserved by some
RFCs.

Best regards,
DJ

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>wrote:
>
>> There's one or two samples that still need to be converted.  I think I'll
>> have time to finish up tonight.
>>
>> I have one comment/question.  I'm thinking that it might be a good idea to
>> have samples go into a separate package space other than org.apache.ki.
>>  This makes it crazy obvious as to what are example packages and what
>> packages are part of the project space.  I was thinking of something like
>> com.acme.sample...  WDYT?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>>  Cool. Does that mean all the package refactoring is finished Alan?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Apache Hudson Server <
>>> hudson@hudson.zones.apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  See
>>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/JSecurity%20-%20ant/38/changes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
I have no issues with that.  But why not org.apache.ki.samples.*?  I'm just
curious...

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>wrote:

> There's one or two samples that still need to be converted.  I think I'll
> have time to finish up tonight.
>
> I have one comment/question.  I'm thinking that it might be a good idea to
> have samples go into a separate package space other than org.apache.ki.
>  This makes it crazy obvious as to what are example packages and what
> packages are part of the project space.  I was thinking of something like
> com.acme.sample...  WDYT?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
>  Cool. Does that mean all the package refactoring is finished Alan?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Apache Hudson Server <
>> hudson@hudson.zones.apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>  See
>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/JSecurity%20-%20ant/38/changes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
There's one or two samples that still need to be converted.  I think  
I'll have time to finish up tonight.

I have one comment/question.  I'm thinking that it might be a good  
idea to have samples go into a separate package space other than  
org.apache.ki.  This makes it crazy obvious as to what are example  
packages and what packages are part of the project space.  I was  
thinking of something like com.acme.sample...  WDYT?


Regards,
Alan

On Mar 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:

> Cool. Does that mean all the package refactoring is finished Alan?
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Apache Hudson Server <
> hudson@hudson.zones.apache.org> wrote:
>
>> See
>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/JSecurity%20-%20ant/38/changes
>>
>>
>>


Re: Hudson build is back to normal: JSecurity - ant #38

Posted by Les Hazlewood <le...@anjinllc.com>.
Cool. Does that mean all the package refactoring is finished Alan?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Apache Hudson Server <
hudson@hudson.zones.apache.org> wrote:

> See
> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/JSecurity%20-%20ant/38/changes
>
>
>