Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cxf-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 45068 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2007 14:17:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Oct 2007 14:17:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 61198 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2007 14:17:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cxf-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 61158 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2007 14:17:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cxf-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 61149 invoked by uid 99); 26 Oct 2007 14:17:03 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:17:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ning.jiang@iona.com designates 12.170.54.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [12.170.54.180] (HELO amer-mx1.iona.com) (12.170.54.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:17:08 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,333,1188792000"; d="dat'59?scan'59,208,59";a="6673948" Received: from amer-ems1.ionaglobal.com ([10.65.6.25]) by amer-mx1.iona.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2007 10:16:45 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C817DA.D6B6693A" Subject: RE: META-INF versus inside packages Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:12:03 -0400 Message-ID: <9A4696F35B459043970EE4A85A31739002554F@amer-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <9A4696F35B459043970EE4A85A31739002554F@amer-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM> Thread-Topic: META-INF versus inside packages Thread-Index: AcgX0BkmOSGe5nxBTy2FC0Bc06urfwACGqqOAAArilAAAD9A7g== References: <9A4696F35B459043970EE4A85A31739002554D@amer-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM> From: "Jiang, Ning \(Willem\)" To: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------_=_NextPart_001_01C817DA.D6B6693A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd like to put it in the package, just like the message file. They are both being eventually accessed. Willem. -----Original Message----- From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bim2007@basistech.com] Sent: Fri 10/26/2007 22:05 To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: META-INF versus inside packages =20 How would you classify a JavaScript file that we will eventually return as part of a ? URL? If 'META-INF' is for things we tell users how to find, then the JavaScript doesn't go there.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jiang, Ning (Willem) [mailto:Ning.Jiang@iona.com] > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 10:00 AM > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: META-INF versus inside packages >=20 >=20 > ASFIK, we put the schemas and the spring configuration files for the > modules into the META-INF directory. > And put others in the package. >=20 > Willem. >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bim2007@basistech.com] > Sent: Fri 10/26/2007 21:50 > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: META-INF versus inside packages >=20 > Is there some principle that guides when to put resources into META-INF > versus inside a package? >=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C817DA.D6B6693A--