Re: [Springframework-developer] Rules code missing?

[Rob H. <rob...@in...>]

Guess we stole the good name ;)

I agree with both Colin and Juergen. Spring Modules was set up to help 
integration with other OSS projects that are not covered in the core. We 
have our own team of comitters all working on a variety of different 
code. In my eyes I would prefer to push all that code back into the 
product we are integrating and have SM serve as a sort of incubator.

I am certainly no fan of java.net although I could not bring myself to 
set up another project on SF with the dreadful CVS performance.

I'll be happy to have SM move over to shared infrastructure but it would 
be nice to maintain separate permissions and a separate package name. I 
would like to use the common-build system so that each module in SM can 
be distributed separately.

Rob

Colin Sampaleanu wrote:
> Erwin Vervaet wrote:
> 
>>> I'm not incredibly attached (or at all) to spring-modules as the name 
>>> of the CVS module for the new stuff. Any name is ok as long as we're 
>>> all ok with it. What about:
>>>  spring-projects
>>>  projects
>>>
>>> Any other suggestions are welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>> What about spring-parts? or spring-components?
>> I also pretty much like "spring-projects", as you suggest.
>>
>> Arguably "spring-modules" is pretty much on the money. Maybe the 
>> Java.net stuff is unfortunately named: "spring-extensions" or 
>> something to that extent would have been more appropriate.
> 
> 
> Well yeah, that's why I went with spring-modules despite the java.net 
> project. I had been thinking of that name before the java.net project 
> every existed. I guess I'll go with spring-projects. The intent is after 
> all that the main projects which make up the various core spring 
> projects move there...
> 
>