Re: [Springframework-developer] Package names

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

I think it's a question of feasibility. It will be hard for me to get up and
talk about Spring when there's no release.  So if we can't do
springframework.org before Boston it's gonna have to be 0.95. If we can,
let's change now.

I vote
0.9 as is (assuming we can't change): this is as much for marketing as
anything else
0.91 with new package names soon after (even within a week)

I don't like springfw: it's a bit cryptic.

Regards,
Rod

----- Original Message -----
From: <tri...@tr...>
To: "jürgen höller [werk3AT]" <jue...@we...>
Cc: <spr...@li...>; "Rod Johnson"
<rod...@in...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] Package names


> Rod, Juergen, All:
>
> > Personally, I'm inclined to a package change even at this time, before
our
> > first public release. Well, we've been talking about a release
_tomorrow_,
> > but I wouldn't mind delaying it till next week to be able to incorporate
the
> > package name change - if the whole group decides to apply it.
>
> Unless we can make the change this week, I think we should release 0.9 as
is and
> then follow up with a 0.91 or 0.95 release that includes the package name
change.
>
> Even Sun switched java package names around when they developed Swing, and
they
> pulled it off.
>
> I don't like long package names, so I have also reserverd 'org.springfw'
just to
> give us another option.
>
> (1) package com.interface21.jdbc.core.support;
> (2) package org.springframework.jdbc.core.support;
> (3) package org.springfw.jdbc.core.support;
>
> I like #3
>
> Thomas
>
>