On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? What for? It would bring only confusion and additional work. Let's spare that. > 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)? This is the case for most of commons components. No sense in treating Sanselan otherwise. Jochen -- Don't trust a government that doesn't trust you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
