geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Opacki <chris_opa...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [core] why org.apache.geronimo.enterprise.deploy.provider package?
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:11:41 GMT
Aaron,
Have I submitted code properly? Still hasn't been
pushed...
Fun arguing about package names...isn't it?
later,
Chris
--- Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> > 'provider' is too generic a name. Would this mean
> 'mail provider'? 
> > 'session replication provider?' A package without
> a definite definition 
> > isn't going to solve the problems.
> 
> 	If you look at the spec, there's a section for the
> "product
> provider" and a section called "tool provider".  We
> split this into "tool"  
> (tool provider) and "provider" (product provider),
> since at the time it
> seemed better than "tool" and "product".  Anything
> you can some up with to
> distinguish "tool" from "product" is good.  They
> ought to go in different
> packages, because they need to go in different JARs.
> 
> > The reason why the 'enterprise', and indeed,
> 'deploy' were part of the 
> > package name were to say that these were relating
> to the deployment of 
> > enterprise code, as opposed to a generic provider.
> 
> 	Actually, geronimo.enterprise.deploy was chosen
> because
> "deployment" was taken and the JSR-88 package is
> "javax.enterprise.deploy"
> so it seemed like mirroring it would be the best
> strategy in the short 
> term.
> 
> Aaron
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Mime
View raw message