[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sdo] AW: Package names for SDO Java Specification
Thank you Ron, for your patience, and for that explanation! In that
case, I have no problem with the TC continuing to use commonj; the concern was
that the work was being identified as that of another organization (OSOA)
rather than OASIS. Obviously any copyright or ownership information comments
should identify OASIS and the TC. Regards, Mary From: Barack, Ron
[mailto:ron.barack@sap.com] Hi Mary, It's a common practice to begin package names with something
identifying the organization. Eg, at SAP, most code begins with
"com.sap". There's nothing that requires this, it's just a
convention, motivated by the wish avoid conflicts (like XML
namespaces). If we were designing SDO from scratch, we'd certainly use the
"org.oasisopen" prefix. The problem is, most of the member
companies already have implementations of SDO, and these implementations offer
interfaces that have the "commonj.sdo" prefix. What is worse,
these implementations have built up substancial user communities. If we
chnage the package prefix, then we cannot make SDO 3.0 compatible with SDO 2.1,
any chance of providing users with a smooth transition is lost. And that
will have a negative influence on the acceptance of the spec. If it had
only to do with the implementation itself or internal users, then I guess that
most companies would simply accept the costs and upgrade, but we don't
want to endanger the acceptance of our spec unneccessarily. SDO is actually old that the OSOA collaberation. When it
moved to OSOA, it kept the commonj prefix because of the same considerations
that motivate us now. I've tried to find out who "owns" the commonj
namespace. I believe that no one does. Rather, it is simply a
convention used by IBM and BEA (when they existed) specifically for use in
"common" standards. We would like to continue to use this
convention for our work under the OASIS banner. Ron Von: Mary McRae
[mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] Hi Barack, Actually, it’s supposed to be org.oasisopen. We are
requiring that instead of org.osoa. It’s my understanding (and I am not a
programmer so excuse my poor explanation) that a prefix identifying the
organization must be used. What organization is commonj.sdo associated with? I
was guessing that this was the next layer following org.osoa … Mary From: Barack, Ron
[mailto:ron.barack@sap.com] Hi Mary, I had the impression that OASIS was requiring the
"org.oasisj" package prefix be used in all interfaces defined by an
OASIS TC. If there is no such requirement, then I guess there is no
problem. Can I report back to the TC that OASIS has no objection to us
continuring to use the "commonj.sdo" namespace? Ron Von: Mary McRae
[mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] Hi Ron, The question from the SCA/J TC was about use of org.osoa
in the package name … I’m not sure what the problem would be with the
“common.sdo” part but I’ll need more clarification from you. Mary From: Barack, Ron
[mailto:ron.barack@sap.com] Hi Mary, There are 2 packages involved: commonj.sdo and commonj.sdo.helper Thanks, Ron Von: Mary McRae
[mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] Hi Ron, Can you be more explicit as to the package names you’d
like approved? I’m guessing you’re referring to the prefix information … Thanks, Mary From: Barack, Ron
[mailto:ron.barack@sap.com] Hi Mary,
The SDO TC has
expressed the desire to continue to use the "commonj.sdo" package
names for all interfaces defined by the SDO/J specification. We are aware
that a similar request has come from the SCA/J TC, and the request was finally
rejected. However, one of the rationals for this decision was that SCA
does not have an existing user base. This is not the case for SDO.
Serveral companies have existing products that use the "commonj.sdo"
package. These products have a wide customer base. We expect a push
back from our users if we now require repackaging. The will be a
significant blow to the acceptance of SDO 3, of the entire SDO TC effort.
Because of this, we would like to request that we be allowed to use the
"commonj.sdo" package. Of course,
this does not affect the namespaces used in any XML and XSDs that we
define. For XML, we will continue to use the OASIS standard namespaces. Thank you
for your consideration, |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]