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

Reply via email to