From dev-return-59765-apmail-openoffice-dev-archive=openoffice.apache.org@openoffice.apache.org Mon Mar 20 19:01:44 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B92E419706 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:01:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 64260 invoked by uid 500); 20 Mar 2017 19:01:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 64156 invoked by uid 500); 20 Mar 2017 19:01:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 63601 invoked by uid 99); 20 Mar 2017 19:01:44 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:01:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 94C561AFCD2 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:01:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.702 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-FvlLzWLXDK for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-smtp-ng-out-4.wtnet.de (mail-smtp-ng-out-4.wtnet.de [84.46.103.120]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 43C335F649 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bc2-blade2.wtnet.de (mail-cust-ng-in-4.wtnet.de [84.46.103.104] (may be forged)) by bc2-blade7.wtnet.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2KJ1YB8011101 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:01:34 +0100 X-WT-Originating-IP: 84.46.50.102 X-WT-Authenticated-As: marcus.mail Received: from f25.linux (CM-POP8-2404.catv.wtnet.de [84.46.50.102]) (authenticated bits=0) by bc2-blade2.wtnet.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v2KJ1Xk4006822 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:01:34 +0100 Subject: Re: Package name for new UNO components? To: dev@openoffice.apache.org References: From: Marcus Message-ID: <7f31a940-c119-b421-2987-58db290e82f4@wtnet.de> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:01:33 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am 20.03.2017 um 16:40 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: > Our pre-existing UNO components use service names of the form > com.sun.star.*, for example: > com.sun.star.comp.sdbc.calc.ODriver > com.sun.star.comp.io.TextInputStream > com.sun.star.comp.Calc.SpreadsheetDocument > > I am busy developing a new UNO component, a database driver for PostgreSQL. > Should I rather use a prefix such as org.apache.openoffice.* for it instead? Is it OK to mixup the namespaces within a specific module / code area? When you are sure that there won't be any side effects then it's maybe OK. However, to support the consistency within the OpenOffice code I would favour the old way. Marcus --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org