Sounds ok. If there are no other suggestions till Sunday, I'll use
"unpublished".
Andrus
On Jan 19, 2007, at 7:41 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> How about unpublished instead of private?
>
>
> On 1/19/07, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 19, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>>
>> > Seems fairly logical, but Subversion allows us to move things
>> around
>> > if it needs to be changed again.
>>
>> True, just trying not to do it too often to avoid upsetting local
>> Eclipse workspaces.
>>
>>
>> > I am a little confused by the "private" in the names, though.
>> Maybe I
>> > just don't understand what you were trying to do, but the term
>> seems
>> > to imply non-open source to me, which of course is not correct.
>>
>> Interesting, of course nothing like that was implied. "private" here
>> means that the module at deployment time will be a part of another
>> aggregated module. Such module should not be published as a
>> standalone module in a public repository and should not be imported
>> by Cayenne users directly. Just like a "private" variable in Java.
>> Again, "private" == "do not publish in the repo".
>>
>> But then, I am not sure what Maven recommended practices are in this
>> respect. This is totally my invention coming of a need to provide
>> user-friendly modules (cayenne-client, cayenne-server) - the idea
>> that breaks neat and clean Maven picture of the world :-)
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Jan 19 2007 - 11:53:44 EST