Re: [Springframework-developer] Package names

[Rod J. <rod...@in...>]

Thomas, All,

My original plan was to keep interface21 for the following reasons:

1. to avoid confusion with the package names in the book. However, as Spring
is now a lot more than the initial release with the book, that objection
probably doesn't apply now.
2. in case anyone sued us over the name Spring. However, that may be a bit
paranoid.

So I don't have any strong feelings on the issue. It may be better to go
springframework, especially as you've already reserved the domain. I guess
it gives more credibility for a true open source project.

I'm a bit reluctant to delay the release of 0.9 for this. So can we vote
please on whether to:
- stay as we are for the time being
- migrate now
- migrate for 1.0

If we're in favour of migrating, I'd probably say do it now, but it would
probably blow away our release plans.

If we do migrate I would really like to keep the revision history, without
needing to navigate back to the old (deleted) file + package. This might
mean renaming the directories in CVS (would need SF to do this, I think); we
would probably need to do a global replace in the text. Anyone have a bright
idea on this? At least with CVS it's easy enough to migrate directory names.

Btw, Hibernate changed package names with release 2!

Regards,
Rod

> What is the future plan for package names?  Are we sticking with
> 'com.interface21'.  A co-worker just commented on the javadoc, asking what
is
> com.interface21 - he did not associate this name with Spring for some
reason :-)
>
> Have you thought about this at all?  To me it is not that important, but
it
> could be down the road.  When someone is looking at a piece of code that
has
> some Spring imports, would it be confusing with the current package
naming?