You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> on 2009/05/13 17:39:08 UTC
Module Names
We currently have two extensions that does not follow the naming
pattern we have of extension/extension-runtime, and these are
binding-atom-abdera and implementation-bpel-ode.
Should we rename these extensions to properly follow the naming
convention we have been using for other extensions ?
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Module Names
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:02 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We currently have two extensions that does not follow the naming
>>> pattern we have of extension/extension-runtime, and these are
>>> binding-atom-abdera and implementation-bpel-ode.
>>>
>>> Should we rename these extensions to properly follow the naming
>>> convention we have been using for other extensions ?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Luciano Resende
>>> Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
>>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>
>> In 2.x or 1.x?
>>
>> I would say this is a 2.x job to tidy these up rather than revisiting
>> in 1.x. In 2.x binding-ws-axis2 doesn't fit either.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> My 2 cents ...
>
> Leave 1.x alone as changing these could break user builds
>
> It wont be a surprise after the last couple of week that I'd be in
> favour of changing the 2.x names so we consistently use -runtime. We
> don't have multiple impls of any extension in 2.x and when we do we
> can just add a -runtime-foo.
>
> ...ant
>
Ok, I'll just update 2.x then....
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Module Names
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We currently have two extensions that does not follow the naming
>> pattern we have of extension/extension-runtime, and these are
>> binding-atom-abdera and implementation-bpel-ode.
>>
>> Should we rename these extensions to properly follow the naming
>> convention we have been using for other extensions ?
>>
>> --
>> Luciano Resende
>> Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>>
>
> In 2.x or 1.x?
>
> I would say this is a 2.x job to tidy these up rather than revisiting
> in 1.x. In 2.x binding-ws-axis2 doesn't fit either.
>
> Simon
>
My 2 cents ...
Leave 1.x alone as changing these could break user builds
It wont be a surprise after the last couple of week that I'd be in
favour of changing the 2.x names so we consistently use -runtime. We
don't have multiple impls of any extension in 2.x and when we do we
can just add a -runtime-foo.
...ant
Re: Module Names
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We currently have two extensions that does not follow the naming
> pattern we have of extension/extension-runtime, and these are
> binding-atom-abdera and implementation-bpel-ode.
>
> Should we rename these extensions to properly follow the naming
> convention we have been using for other extensions ?
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
In 2.x or 1.x?
I would say this is a 2.x job to tidy these up rather than revisiting
in 1.x. In 2.x binding-ws-axis2 doesn't fit either.
Simon