commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <>
Subject RE: [sanselan] Next steps
Date Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:59:45 GMT
Gary Gregory wrote at Dienstag, 28. April 2009 08:10:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Steitz []
>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 6:46 PM
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: [sanselan] Next steps
>> We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].  Welcome!

Yes, welcome. I have myself some image (resp. imageio) related code sitting
here and I'll have a close look whether it makes sense to add this also.

>> We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>> 2. Most commons components have a "functional" name instead of a "fun"
>> name. Would Sanselan need to be renamed, e.g. Commons Image, or would it
>> be ok to have the sub-project called Sanselan, or Commons Sanselan?
> +1 for a functional name, Image or other.


Actually, if I have some need of common functionality not part of the JDK,
my first look is at the Apache commons components. Looking for image
related code I'd probably never spotted senselan though, simply because I
expect that the component name matches the covered topic.

>> My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to have this
>> documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages,
>> so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
>> personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most
>> importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not changing
>> the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to find their
>> way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive.
>> Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate topic.
>> 3. Would any changes be required from the existing packaging of
>> Sanselan? For example, packages are named org.apache.sanselan. Would
>> these need to be renamed to org.apache.commons.sanselan (or less fun
>> name as above)?
>> My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.
>> Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
> +1, yep, just like all other commons packages.



- Jörg

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message