On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:25 AM, j-g-faustus <johannes.fries...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 5:21 am, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-googlegroups. > 620...@mired.org> wrote: > > So maybe it's best to use the Java convention after all? > It has been proven to scale, is widely used and plays well with > whatever else is running on the JVM, which are strong points in its > favor. >
Since there's a lot of forking going on (I've had recently to validate 3 different forks of congomongo, for example), should forks change their namespace, or just the jar name? Relying on a single name (i.e. namespace) is suboptimal to resolve this issue. I think .NET's namespace convention are much more sensible, but relies on Assembly's metadata to avoid jar/dll hell and forgery. Ideally the namespace could be whatever you want, and we could think towards OSGI (or any similar in JVM space) to export proper full name, version and perhaps in the future even signing the jar. (regards) Pedro -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
