Hi Phil, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/17/11 7:55 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: >> Another slightly odd looking thing is to have >> org.apache.commons.sanselan.common as a package. There is also a util >> packages. I wonder I this stuff can be moved around in some way that >> looks and feels less scattered. >> >> Op Ed: >> On a different tak, personally, I've never liked sanselan as a package >> in the [commons] universe. I want to just see org.apache.commons.image >> or some such. Just like we have .io, .lang, .net, and so on. All >> commons packages are functional IIRC, not some goofy name. > > +1 - we talked about this IIRC when [sanselan] was incubating and > decided not to force the name change. I think it was to make it > easier for then current users and developers to keep engagement / > momentum. I think its worth asking again now that it has moved into > Commons and repackaging is going to be necessary anyway. Why not > just change to o.a.c.image? +1 IMHO renaming it to "image" will attract more users, simply because everyone then knows what to expect from this component simply by looking at the name. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
