2010/1/29 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
I think "j2eeType" in object names and abstract names mapped to object names is a literal specified in jsr77 so we shouldn't change it. 
OK, I see..
I'd be OK with javaee or ee in package names as long as we are sure it won't disrupt anyones ongoing development.  So if you want to do this please figure out all the places that will change and make sure no one is working on them.
OK, I will open a jira and provide a patch first.


Since this is a non-functional change I tend to consider it less important than getting all of the 2.2 functionality working in 3.0 and getting all of aries functionality integrated.  However, it would be nice to have more up to date names.

david jencks

On Jan 29, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Jack Cai wrote:

I remember that "jee" is not a good abbreviation. So maybe "javaee" or "ee".


On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Shawn Jiang <genspring@gmail.com> wrote:
Good idea if following concerns are addressed:

1, This might break some user's existing deployment plan.
2, Doc and Example need update as well after such a change.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Rex Wang <rwonly@gmail.com> wrote:

I think it is a good time to stop calling "j2ee" in our new Geronimo.
There are a lot of places using this term, such as plugin project names, artifact names, "j2eeType"...
So which one is more appropriate, javaee or jee?

Any thoughts?

Lei Wang (Rex)
rwonly AT apache.org


Lei Wang (Rex)
rwonly AT apache.org