commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Torsten Curdt <>
Subject Re: [sanselan] Next steps
Date Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:01:17 GMT
There are enough projects for which a "fun name" works just fine.
Usually they are bigger though. *shrug* No strong opinion on this one.

I do have a strong opinion on the package name though. Definitely
should live in our package space. After all it's just a right click on


On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:59, Jörg Schaible <> wrote:
> Gary Gregory wrote at Dienstag, 28. April 2009 08:10:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Phil Steitz []
>>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 6:46 PM
>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>> Subject: [sanselan] Next steps
>>> We have voted to accept sanselan as a commons component [1].  Welcome!
> Yes, welcome. I have myself some image (resp. imageio) related code sitting
> here and I'll have a close look whether it makes sense to add this also.
>>> We now need to settle the administrative questions raised in [2]:
>>> 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?
>> +1 for a functional name, Image or other.
> +1
> Actually, if I have some need of common functionality not part of the JDK,
> my first look is at the Apache commons components. Looking for image
> related code I'd probably never spotted senselan though, simply because I
> expect that the component name matches the covered topic.
>>> My preference would be to adopt a functional name.  We used to have this
>>> documented as a policy, but that seems to vanished from the web pages,
>>> so it is possible that we made a conscious decision that I just
>>> personally forgot about to eliminate this policy.  If others - most
>>> importantly, the Sanselan community - feel strongly about not changing
>>> the name, I am OK with it.  It makes it easier for people to find their
>>> way through our components, however, if their names are descriptive.
>>> Personally, I feel the same way about TLPs, but that is a separate topic.
>>> 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)?
>>> My preference would be o.a.c.x, where x is the new functional name.
>>> Repackaging provides an opportunity to revise the name.
>> +1, yep, just like all other commons packages.
> +1
> [snip]
> - Jörg
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message