You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com> on 2006/06/01 13:27:05 UTC

Feedback request - naming convention for mangen package

Will hopefully get a chance to move mangen into Felix quite soon.

The proposed package name that most seemed happy with at last count was:

    org.apache.felix.mangen

I could also live with any of the following if people think they're better:

    org.apache.felix.tools.mangen
    org.apache.felix.utils.mangen
    org.apache.felix.support.mangen

    (ok, I know we may be shortening the org.apache.felix root soon - so
    it's more the felix.xxx part).

So speak now if you have a burning preference - otherwise I'll just go 
with felix.mangen.

Also, this was my plan of tasks:

    * Mod all file headers to include Apache banners (think I have an
      awk or sed script for this somewhere)
    * Mod all package names
    * Find location of required BCEL and ASM versions in maven repos
    * Replace current Ant script with POM.XML file for building (may
      leave Ant one in)
    * Update JIRA with todo's and issues, and send out notices when done
    * Specifically not planning to move docs as yet - they're still be
      on SF.NET until I figure where best to move these. It's the Twiki
      -> Xyz doc reformatting task that I don't  want to do more than once.

Anything obvious I've missed?

-- Rob 


Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
robw@ascert.com
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com


Re: Feedback request - naming convention for mangen package

Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Rob Walker wrote:
...
> Anything obvious I've missed?

Looks good.

We take out author tags, if you have any in there.

Although we haven't discussed it to completion here yet, I like the 
convention on Directory to replace them with one for the project's dev 
list, such as:

/**
  * A {@link Configuration} that adds a new {@link ContextPartition} to
  * the current {@link ContextPartitionNexus}.
  *
  * @author <a href="mailto:dev@directory.apache.org">Apache Directory 
Project</a>
  * @version $Rev$, $Date$
  */

I show an author tag here in context, not to imply any other conventions 
w.r.t. the header.

Enrique

Re: Feedback request - naming convention for mangen package

Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Trustin Lee wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Timothy Bennett <ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/1/06, Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Will hopefully get a chance to move mangen into Felix quite soon.
>> >
>> > The proposed package name that most seemed happy with at last count 
>> was:
>> >
>> >     org.apache.felix.mangen
>> >
>> > I could also live with any of the following if people think they're
>> > better:
>> >
>> >     org.apache.felix.tools.mangen
>> >     org.apache.felix.utils.mangen
>> >     org.apache.felix.support.mangen
>>
>>
>> Is there no overwhelming desire by the community to distinguish between
>> support tools code and actual Felix source via package naming 
>> conventions?
>
>
> I prefer org.apache.felix.tool.mangen.  (I usually don't use plural for a
> package name component.)  Of course we can go with
> org.apache.felix.mangen for a while and move to
> tool.mangen when we get more tools.

+1 on both accounts (start with felix.mangen for now and no plurals in 
the future)

-> richard

Re: Feedback request - naming convention for mangen package

Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 6/1/06, Timothy Bennett <ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/1/06, Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com> wrote:
> >
> > Will hopefully get a chance to move mangen into Felix quite soon.
> >
> > The proposed package name that most seemed happy with at last count was:
> >
> >     org.apache.felix.mangen
> >
> > I could also live with any of the following if people think they're
> > better:
> >
> >     org.apache.felix.tools.mangen
> >     org.apache.felix.utils.mangen
> >     org.apache.felix.support.mangen
>
>
> Is there no overwhelming desire by the community to distinguish between
> support tools code and actual Felix source via package naming conventions?


I prefer org.apache.felix.tool.mangen.  (I usually don't use plural for a
package name component.)  Of course we can go with
org.apache.felix.mangenfor a while and move to
tool.mangen when we get more tools.

Trustin
-- 
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP key fingerprints:
* E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41  4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E
* B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4  455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6

Re: Feedback request - naming convention for mangen package

Posted by Timothy Bennett <ti...@gmail.com>.
On 6/1/06, Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com> wrote:
>
> Will hopefully get a chance to move mangen into Felix quite soon.
>
> The proposed package name that most seemed happy with at last count was:
>
>     org.apache.felix.mangen
>
> I could also live with any of the following if people think they're
> better:
>
>     org.apache.felix.tools.mangen
>     org.apache.felix.utils.mangen
>     org.apache.felix.support.mangen


Is there no overwhelming desire by the community to distinguish between
support tools code and actual Felix source via package naming conventions?

-- 
timothy

Re: Feedback request - naming convention for mangen package

Posted by Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com>.
> Maybe not so obvious...
>
> Do you own all changes in the codebase??
>
>   
Own all of it and wrote all of it - well - almost - have to give Richard 
credit on the ASM wrapper layer (my original one was BCEL) - somehow 
think Richard will be cool for his code to go in though .... ;)

-- Rob


Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
robw@ascert.com
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com


Re: Feedback request - naming convention for mangen package

Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Thursday 01 June 2006 19:27, Rob Walker wrote:

Package names; I don't care.

> Anything obvious I've missed?

Maybe not so obvious...

Do you own all changes in the codebase??

If not, then we will need to seek the explicit permission of changing the EPL 
to ALv2 from those contributors, or remove those contributions from the 
codebase.


Cheers
Niclas