geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: [core] why org.apache.geronimo.enterprise.deploy.provider package?
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:35:13 GMT
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 


View raw message