Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: commons-dev@ws.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4422D0D4.9020804@opensource.lk>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:46:12 +0600
From: Eran Chinthaka <chinthaka@opensource.lk>
Reply-To: chinthaka@opensource.lk
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: commons-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: VOTE: change package name for Axiom
References: <1143115465.1996.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <f43ea5790603230417q5451d021ve45f7ea018d6da28@mail.gmail.com>
	 <19e0530f0603230542j52bb2ee6m1223307e0324da93@mail.gmail.com>
 <1143124169.7978.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1143124169.7978.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="------------enigED6D1FC125014E41BCC44A45"

--------------enigED6D1FC125014E41BCC44A45
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

One more thing to draw attention.

AXIOM has a layer specific to SOAP. Is it ok we keep this in axiom-api
and axiom-impl ?

('m just asking for all of yours opinion)

-- Chinthaka

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 08:42 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>  =20
>> +1 to org.apache.ws.axiom (at least for the ws-commons stuff!)
>>
>> On 3/23/06, Ajith Ranabahu <ajith.ranabahu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>    =20
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm also +1 in the change since Axiom is an XML object model just lik=
e
>>> JDOM. However I wonder whether Apache has a convention of having the
>>> top level project name in the packaging, say "ws" in this case ?
>>>      =20
>
> There's absolutely no such ASF convention. Its up to us to decide what
> we want to do. There are projects that do it both ways.
>
> My reasoning is as follows: Look at it from an Axiom user's point of
> view. Does (s)he need to know that Axiom originated in WS land? No,
> absolutely not. All (s)he needs to know that its an XML Infoset
> representation with XOP built into it. (No, that's not WS specific
> either.)
>
> Let's please not get territorial about this stuff .. we don't gain
> anything by claiming "ownership" with a ".ws" in the package name. Just=

> look at it from the user's view. Apache Axiom works just fine and is
> perfect to make clear to users what it actually is.
>
> I'm going to argue the same for XML Schema .. that has nothing to do
> with WS either.
>
> WS-Policy OTOH does. However, I'm planning on proposing a name for it (=
I
> have one in mind but I'll hold it for now) and suggesting calling it
> "Apache XXX."
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
>  =20


--------------enigED6D1FC125014E41BCC44A45
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEItDXjON2uBzUhh8RAvxGAJ46YWsqTmh/ASgw0vd7hzgyGLPq5QCgrsNA
WVM7rs4FaV5q3giimL1X4TM=
=IlGl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigED6D1FC125014E41BCC44A45--