Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Avalon Development" <avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010411143055.00e92440@mail.alphalink.com.au>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:30:55 +1000
To: "Avalon Development" <avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
From: Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org>
Subject: RE: back to branding
Cc: "Avalon Development" <avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <000101c0c1c6$b0bc9c10$0a01a8c0@osm.net>
References: <3.0.6.32.20010410131739.01018210@mail.alphalink.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 04:01  10/4/01 +0200, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>The proposal/org.apache.framework is clean in structure,
>the proposal/org.apache.avalon is not (just try drawing up
>a package dependency graph for proposal/org.apache.avalon and
>you will see what I mean. Bottom line - this is back to the
>question of package naming that we were discussing earlier.
>
>I propose the following:
>
>  1. the current proposal/org.apache.framework be renamed
>     to proposal/org.apache.avalon (on the grounds already
>     covered in numerous emails relating to brand)

Sounds fine to me.

>  2. that the current proposal/org.apache.avalon be renamed
>     to proposal/org.apache.avalon.dev

-1 as it doesn't make sense conceptually
* mixes component and framework aspects
* mixes stable and non-stable aspects
* doesn't make it clearer what dev is supposed to do

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org