Re: Patch: java.beans

[Tom Tromey <tromey at cygnus dot com>]

>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Sturm <jsturm@sigma6.com> writes:

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

For libgcj the stuff we put in gnu.* are implementation details --
that is why we stuck the "gcj" in there.

I was assuming that gnu.java.beans were implementation details of the
Classpath beans.  I admit I didn't look.

If they are implementation details then they should be something like
gnu.classpath.beans.  If not, then I like your idea.

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

Jeff> Should we spearhead a discussion with the classpath project?

Definitely.

Also, I think maintaining the gnu.* hierarchy is something that could
be done under the classpath/gcj umbrella.  We should bring that up on
the classpath list too.

T