[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation
|
From: |
dog |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation |
|
Date: |
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:50:40 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i (Darwin) |
dixit aselkirk:
> If no one objects, I would like to redesign these files and incorporate some
> object design back into them. On a related issue, what is the package
> namespace I should use for these support files?
> gnu.classpathx.activation...
> classpathx.activation...
> others?
my vote would be for gnu.activation.* as with gnu.mail.*, no point having
unnecessarily long package names.
--
dog
zx750-p5 sl-mille ukrmma#18
sol lucet omnibus ... praeter anglorum
- [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, Andrew Selkirk, 2001/12/02
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation,
dog <=
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, Nic Ferrier, 2001/12/03
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, David Brownell, 2001/12/03
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, Andrew Selkirk, 2001/12/03
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, David Brownell, 2001/12/03
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, dog, 2001/12/04
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, David Brownell, 2001/12/04
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, dog, 2001/12/04
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, David Brownell, 2001/12/04
- Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation, Nic Ferrier, 2001/12/04