10:58 p.m.
The backlog ( https://fedorahosted.org/candlepin/wiki/BrainBox ) has
an item #35 like to have shorter package names which look cool i.e.
org.candlepin. This is quite an easy thing to do but should really be
done before we make our first release. I'm ok with org.candlepin.
Thoughts?
jesus
7:04 a.m.
On 03/29/2010 11:58 PM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
The backlog ( https://fedorahosted.org/candlepin/wiki/BrainBox ) has
an item #35 like to have shorter package names which look cool i.e.
org.candlepin. This is quite an easy thing to do but should really be
done before we make our first release. I'm ok with org.candlepin.
Thoughts?
jesus
_______________________________________________
candlepin mailing list
candlepin(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/candlepin
I have noticed in the maven
works that folks are moving towards package
names being common names. I would be fine with dropping the org if you
like.. candlepin.XXX
-- bk
8:28 a.m.
----- "Bryan Kearney" <bkearney(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 03/29/2010 11:58 PM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
> The backlog ( https://fedorahosted.org/candlepin/wiki/BrainBox )
has
> an item #35 like to have shorter package names which look cool i.e.
> org.candlepin. This is quite an easy thing to do but should really
be
> done before we make our first release. I'm ok with org.candlepin.
>
> Thoughts?
Yeah I think the Java convention is that it is your url backwards (never really understood
that), so
we should do org.candlepin if we are going to register candlepin.org.
>
> jesus
> _______________________________________________
> candlepin mailing list
> candlepin(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/candlepin
I have noticed in the maven works that folks are moving towards
package
names being common names. I would be fine with dropping the org if you
like.. candlepin.XXX
-- bk
_______________________________________________
candlepin mailing list
candlepin(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/candlepin
8:52 a.m.
On 03/30/2010 09:28 AM, Justin Harris wrote:
----- "Bryan Kearney"<bkearney(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/29/2010 11:58 PM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> The backlog ( https://fedorahosted.org/candlepin/wiki/BrainBox )
>>
> has
>
>> an item #35 like to have shorter package names which look cool i.e.
>> org.candlepin. This is quite an easy thing to do but should really
>>
> be
>
>> done before we make our first release. I'm ok with org.candlepin.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
Yeah I think the Java convention is that it is your url backwards (never really
understood that), so
we should do org.candlepin if we are going to register candlepin.org.
The rationale is that you own your domain name, so the package names
will be globally unique. So com.candlepin and org.candlepin could
co-exist in the same process space.
>> jesus
>> _______________________________________________
>> candlepin mailing list
>> candlepin(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/candlepin
>>
> I have noticed in the maven works that folks are moving towards
> package
> names being common names. I would be fine with dropping the org if you
>
> like.. candlepin.XXX
>
> -- bk
>
> _______________________________________________
> candlepin mailing list
> candlepin(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/candlepin
>
_______________________________________________
candlepin mailing list
candlepin(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/candlepin
8:59 a.m.
On 03/30/2010 09:52 AM, Adam Young wrote:
On 03/30/2010 09:28 AM, Justin Harris wrote:
> ----- "Bryan Kearney"<bkearney(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 03/29/2010 11:58 PM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>> The backlog ( https://fedorahosted.org/candlepin/wiki/BrainBox )
>>>
>> has
>>
>>> an item #35 like to have shorter package names which look cool i.e.
>>> org.candlepin. This is quite an easy thing to do but should really
>>>
>> be
>>
>>> done before we make our first release. I'm ok with org.candlepin.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
> Yeah I think the Java convention is that it is your url backwards (never really
understood that), so
> we should do org.candlepin if we are going to register candlepin.org.
>
The rationale is that you own your domain name, so the package names
will be globally unique. So com.candlepin and org.candlepin could
co-exist in the same process space.
Yeah.. but it seems alot of the maven artifacts (commons, hibernate,
etc) are moving away from the org.foo.bar hierarchy for the jars.
-- bk
9:12 a.m.
On 03/30/2010 09:59 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
On 03/30/2010 09:52 AM, Adam Young wrote:
> On 03/30/2010 09:28 AM, Justin Harris wrote:
>> ----- "Bryan Kearney"<bkearney(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 03/29/2010 11:58 PM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>>> The backlog ( https://fedorahosted.org/candlepin/wiki/BrainBox )
>>>>
>>> has
>>>
>>>> an item #35 like to have shorter package names which look cool i.e.
>>>> org.candlepin. This is quite an easy thing to do but should really
>>>>
>>> be
>>>
>>>> done before we make our first release. I'm ok with org.candlepin.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>> Yeah I think the Java convention is that it is your url backwards
>> (never really understood that), so
>> we should do org.candlepin if we are going to register candlepin.org.
>>
>
> The rationale is that you own your domain name, so the package names
> will be globally unique. So com.candlepin and org.candlepin could
> co-exist in the same process space.
Yeah.. but it seems alot of the maven artifacts (commons, hibernate,
etc) are moving away from the org.foo.bar hierarchy for the jars.
-- bk
I thought it was just the opposite: they started off hat way, but more
are in the org... structure. Still that is just the maven name. The
java packages still are com. and so on.
9:42 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/30/2010 09:59 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> The rationale is that you own your domain name, so the package
names
> will be globally unique. So com.candlepin and org.candlepin could
> co-exist in the same process space.
Yeah.. but it seems alot of the maven artifacts (commons, hibernate,
etc) are moving away from the org.foo.bar hierarchy for the jars.
I'm not talking about the jars, I'm talking about the actual
package name i.e. instead of org.fedorahosted.candlepin.model.Consumer
it would be org.candlepin.model.Consumer. Honestly I'm fine with
the existing one since that's where we are hosting the project.
But the backlog seemed to want to change it, so I'm offering
up org.candlepin. As far as a release name I'm fine with just
candlepin in a <cough>maven</cough> repo.
jesus
- --
jesus m. rodriguez | jesusr(a)redhat.com
principal software engineer | irc: zeus
red hat systems management | 919.754.4413 (w)
rhce # 805008586930012 | 919.623.0080 (c)
+---------------------------------------------+
| "Those who cannot remember the past |
| are condemned to repeat it." |
| -- George Santayana |
+---------------------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuyDcoACgkQvJZ57YntiYO44QCeLs+J3u7T2fpEvN6lRsLauWGL
2pQAoN6+x8+errRXPeD+X9hfzv+9ZNdX
=lwkx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:51 a.m.
On 03/30/2010 10:42 AM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/30/2010 09:59 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>> The rationale is that you own your domain name, so the package names
>> will be globally unique. So com.candlepin and org.candlepin could
>> co-exist in the same process space.
>>
>
> Yeah.. but it seems alot of the maven artifacts (commons, hibernate,
> etc) are moving away from the org.foo.bar hierarchy for the jars.
>
I'm not talking about the jars, I'm talking about the actual
package name i.e. instead of org.fedorahosted.candlepin.model.Consumer
it would be org.candlepin.model.Consumer. Honestly I'm fine with
the existing one since that's where we are hosting the project.
But the backlog seemed to want to change it, so I'm offering
up org.candlepin. As far as a release name I'm fine with just
candlepin in a<cough>maven</cough> repo.
http://candlepin.org/ Owned by Network Solutions. Cybersquatting, but
at least they have links to Bowling related stuff.
jesus
- --
jesus m. rodriguez | jesusr(a)redhat.com
principal software engineer | irc: zeus
red hat systems management | 919.754.4413 (w)
rhce # 805008586930012 | 919.623.0080 (c)
+---------------------------------------------+
| "Those who cannot remember the past |
| are condemned to repeat it." |
| -- George Santayana |
+---------------------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuyDcoACgkQvJZ57YntiYO44QCeLs+J3u7T2fpEvN6lRsLauWGL
2pQAoN6+x8+errRXPeD+X9hfzv+9ZNdX
=lwkx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
candlepin mailing list
candlepin(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/candlepin
10:57 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/30/2010 11:51 AM, Adam Young wrote:
On 03/30/2010 10:42 AM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
I'm not talking about the jars, I'm talking about the actual
package name i.e. instead of org.fedorahosted.candlepin.model.Consumer
it would be org.candlepin.model.Consumer. Honestly I'm fine with
the existing one since that's where we are hosting the project.
But the backlog seemed to want to change it, so I'm offering
up org.candlepin. As far as a release name I'm fine with just
candlepin in a<cough>maven</cough> repo.
> http://candlepin.org/ Owned by Network Solutions. Cybersquatting, but
> at least they have links to Bowling related stuff.
if we're going with host names, why not leave it as is then. We
already own org.fedorahosted.candlepin.
jesus
- --
jesus m. rodriguez | jesusr(a)redhat.com
principal software engineer | irc: zeus
red hat systems management | 919.754.4413 (w)
rhce # 805008586930012 | 919.623.0080 (c)
+---------------------------------------------+
| "Those who cannot remember the past |
| are condemned to repeat it." |
| -- George Santayana |
+---------------------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuyH3sACgkQvJZ57YntiYP2aQCfa0axwYDLUH+ewOmHIVAUunfu
8G8AniaMv48Eb3myZw5pldrEQwV4Q4Pe
=Wo/U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:03 p.m.
On 03/30/2010 11:57 AM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/30/2010 11:51 AM, Adam Young wrote:
> On 03/30/2010 10:42 AM, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
> I'm not talking about the jars, I'm talking about the actual
> package name i.e. instead of org.fedorahosted.candlepin.model.Consumer
> it would be org.candlepin.model.Consumer. Honestly I'm fine with
> the existing one since that's where we are hosting the project.
> But the backlog seemed to want to change it, so I'm offering
> up org.candlepin. As far as a release name I'm fine with just
> candlepin in a<cough>maven</cough> repo.
>
>> http://candlepin.org/ Owned by Network Solutions. Cybersquatting, but
>> at least they have links to Bowling related stuff.
if we're going with host names, why not leave it as is then. We
already own org.fedorahosted.candlepin.
It is sooooo big ;)
org.fh.cp?
-- bk
5202
days inactive
5202
days old
candlepin@lists.fedorahosted.org
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Adam Young -
Bryan Kearney -
Jesus M. Rodriguez -
jesus rodriguez -
Justin Harris