pivot-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: When are you going to move packages to org.apache.pivot?
Date Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:13:12 GMT
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Greg Brown<gkbrown@mac.com> wrote:
>> java and javax are reserved namespaces for platform classes, so I
>> don't see their relevance here.
>
> The relevance is that Pivot's classes are meant to replace many of these
> platform classes, and should therefore be given equal billing.

Is not relevant. Logger from log4j is meant to replace java's logger
class. Yet it lives in org.apache.log4j Wicket's Component class is
meant to replace Swing's Component, JSF's Component, yet it lives in
org.apache.wicket. This is not relevant.

>> Regarding "outdated"... not using the reversed fully qualified domain
>> name was the way old projects named their packages. That is the
>> outdated variety. Even junit, which is has been around since the early
>> days has converted to org.junit.
>
> I'm suggesting that the TLD prefix is outdated. I'd much prefer "junit.*" to
> "org.junit.*", for example.

Personal preference, but TLD is *not* outdated. It is the defacto
standard. Furthermore, you are now an Apache project. Part of that is
using the org.apache package name, similar to not using pivot.org, but
pivot.apache.org.

> How likely is a project to use classes from
> "org.junit" and "com.junit" at the same time (if the latter even existed)?

Doesn't matter.

> IMO, not very. I'm assuming that's why Microsoft dropped the convention when
> they came up with the C# coding standards.

You're not programming in C#, and it fails the exit requirements
stated in both quotes I provided.

>> I don't see pivot.* being any less official than org.apache.pivot.*.
>> You have the full might of Apache there, and there's no need to have
>> to type in those package names anymore with current IDEs.
>
> I understand that this is a minor distinction, but Sun's naming guidelines
> make any classes not developed by Sun for the java(x).* package seem like
> second-class citizens.

Nope. That is something you pulled out of your own perception hat.

> It's hard enough as it is to convince developers to
> use Pivot instead of the "official" UI toolkits provided by Sun. Why make it
> any more difficult than it needs to be?

Trust me, I have worked in the wicket.* namespace and the number of
times we had to explain why we weren't using org.wicket or
net.sf.wicket, etc. got really old. People really want code to live in
neatly organized packages and not pollute the global namespace.

Having your packages reside in org.apache.pivot gives new users direct
access to where pivot lives, what the license is, and what brand is
behind it. Not so with just plain "pivot.*".

Based on precedent in the incubator, you'd have to come up with
something a lot stronger than "I prefer", "same level as Java" and the
other sentiments you put here.

All projects going through the incubator had to rename their project,
and I fail to see how pivot is anything more special than say
"wicket", "jsecurity", "jspwiki", or "empire-db".

Martijn

Mime
View raw message