Hi,
2 things to defend core and one thing against it to take into consideration core would be
defence:
1) typically no execution would be taking place from en expanded source code structure on the third level, so why would a core dump be generated on that spot anyway. (and who would be looking there for a core dump?)
2) file core and directory core are something different
consider:
core may be excluded from backup's, svn/cvs syncing.
I also like core best, but maybe it isn't such a good idea indeed.
for historical reasons we could use tools ;-) oata -> oaat
Martijn
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
We could use org.apache.ant.kernel :-)
Isn't it the same thing?
JA
-----Original Message-----
From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 April 2005 16:24
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: RE: Antlib package names
mildly offFrom: Phil Weighill-Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cheek><tongue>Use of "core" as a package/directory name is
in
a UNIX environment as the directory might be confused with a coredump!
It would be a directory instead of a file though, so it wouldn't be mistaken for long. I'm not sure it invalidates my proposal though; I guess it puts a dent in it OTOH. We're often discussing Ant Core, and until now nobody's mentioned it could be confused for Ant's Core dump;n)</tongue></cheek>
Phil :n)
;-) --DD
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
