Re: Patch: java.beans

[Jeff Sturm <jsturm at sigma6 dot com>]

Tom Tromey wrote:
> 
> Warren> Also note that the Classpath hierarchy is a bit different from
> Warren> the libgcj hierarchy (e.g. gnu/java/beans for the former and
> Warren> gnu/gcj/beans for the latter).  Though trivial to change, it
> Warren> means that the files between the 2 projects differ slightly
> Warren> making diff's a pain to look at, etc.  If anyone has comments
> Warren> on this, I'm going to hold off a day or so before committing
> Warren> the changes.
> 
> We should really approach this problem via Classpath.
> If we think the existing naming isn't the right one (and I agree that
> "gnu/java" is too generic -- but "gnu/gcj" would be wrong for them),
> then we should push it there and see about getting a change made.

It seems like the bigger issue is arbitration of the gnu.* Java package
space.  The libgcj and classpath teams are the primary users of that
namespace right now, so they ought to collaborate on choosing package
names, I'd think.  Renaming packages isn't fun (or productive).

I don't like either gnu.java.beans or gnu.gcj.beans.  There should be
one official GNU package for java.beans (that's the point of the
libgcj/classpath merger) and it perhaps ought to be simply gnu.beans.

There will also be work unrelated to classpath and libgcj that lives in
the gnu package tree.  Having developers choose their own package names
sounds too chaotic to me, and is likely to eventually lead to namespace
collisions.

Should we spearhead a discussion with the classpath project?

-- 
Jeff Sturm
jsturm@sigma6.com