On Sat, 2007-08-18 at 11:49 +0200, Roland Weber wrote:
> Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> >
> > What's wrong with org.apache.slide for WebDAV components?
>
> If we're not taking over the full Slide codebase,
> and if Slide\{WebDAV-client} is not officially
> declared dormant in Jakarta, then we'd have two
> independent projects using the same namespace.
>
> Since a WebDAV client based on the 4.0 HttpClient
> will be incompatible, it's also a question whether
> the same package names should be used. That will
> create name clashes in applications that for some
> reason - for example during migration - have to
> use both old and new packages.
>
> While Martin mentioned in the June board report [1]
> that he would like to keep the Slide codebase in
> one piece, the current state of the discussion tends
> towards carving out the WebDAV client only. In that
> case, I wonder whether we should position the "new"
> component as a successor to Slide at all.
>
If there are no plans to develop non-client bits any further, I
personally think WebDAV client should keep Slide as its name. Slide is a
well established brand and I see no benefit in discarding it and coming
up with some new fancy name.
Oleg
> cheers,
> Roland
>
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaBoardReport-June2007
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
