[jdom-interest] JDOM-like package names

[Patrick Dowler]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> I for one would like to avoid confusion over package names.  If someone
> wants to add something to the org.jdom package in their own project as a
> temp. workaround, that's one thing, but I don't want two different
> org.jdom.Element's running around on the internet.

But this makes it impossible for someone to create an alternate implementation.
Apps would have to be coded to the one and only implementation. This is one
reason why org.w3c.* can be implemented by anyone freely, presumably.

It's also a good reason to use interfaces, IMO.

> I would suggest a separate project, separate package name, and only
> JDOM-like compatibility.

Which is totally useless. Why bother with any compatibility if the apps
have to be rewritten anyway?

> Patrick Dowler wrote:
> 
> On the subject of forking code and interfaces, there is one
> catch here that seems relevant. James' goal is for his fork
> to remain API compatible with JDOM, which means that he
> needs to have classes named org.jdom.Element (etc).
> 
> Is that an acceptable use of the word "jdom"?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
> http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhost.com
-- 

Patrick Dowler
Canadian Astronomy Data Centre