On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> wrote: > I don't quite understand the point of this. Here we are with a Java > wrapper library for the Subversion APIs. The versioning rules that apply > to it are the same as for the rest of Subversion -- in other words, we > *must* keep the same package names in the JavaHL public API.
"Must" is a strong word, and a compatible path forward is suggested. > Is there a > specific reason for doing a bunch of extra work that does not add any > value to JavaHL but only adds a layer of indirection for /all/ users of > the library? Java coding standard(s) makes very strong assertions that package names should be 'owned' domain names, to ensure avoidance of name collisions. Apache has maintained such for practically all projects, incl all incoming projects, and I am somewhat confident that some of these projects have more dependent developers than Subversion. The indirection overhead would be "optional". Do a "s/org.tigris/org.apache/g" replace and you are good to go without the overhead. I am not qualified to answer your sarcasm about C libraries and header files. No idea how naming conflicts are avoided in reality. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
