4:30 a.m.
I was doing a pre-release review and found out the artifact is called
java-sender, and consequently this would be named like this
GAV: org.jboss.aerogear.unifiedpush:java-sender:0.1.0
is this the expected naming?
I'd like to propose to change this before we release to java-client or
unified-push-java-client.
Thoughts?
--
qmx
6:08 a.m.
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013, Douglas Campos wrote:
I was doing a pre-release review and found out the artifact is
called
java-sender, and consequently this would be named like this
GAV: org.jboss.aerogear.unifiedpush:java-sender:0.1.0
is this the expected naming?
I'd like to propose to change this before we release to java-client or
unified-push-java-client.
I am OK with that.
However not sure if this name implies the client is also responsible to
create PushApplications/Variants.
But it is really just a java version of a "sender"
-Matthias
Thoughts?
--
qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <javascript:;>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
7:39 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 06:08:21AM +0200, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
However not sure if this name implies the client is also responsible
to
create PushApplications/Variants.
But it is really just a java version of a "sender"
What is a sender? I
mean, it lacks context ;)
If this is only a sender, the nodejs client and this should be renamed,
even at repository level, right?
--
qmx
7:45 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 06:08:21AM +0200, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> However not sure if this name implies the client is also responsible to
> create PushApplications/Variants.
>
> But it is really just a java version of a "sender"
What is a sender? I mean, it lacks context ;)
Ok, but not sure how to improve that, without a mouthful :-)
I guess we can go with "unified-push-java-client", that's just fine for me.
If this is only a sender, the nodejs client and this should be
renamed,
even at repository level, right?
--
qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
8:19 a.m.
+1 for unified-push-java-client
Just do it
Douglas Campos wrote:
I was doing a pre-release review and found out the artifact is
called
java-sender, and consequently this would be named like this
GAV: org.jboss.aerogear.unifiedpush:java-sender:0.1.0
is this the expected naming?
I'd like to propose to change this before we release to java-client or
unified-push-java-client.
Thoughts?
--
abstractj
8:21 a.m.
+1 unified-push-java-client sounds good.
Den onsdagen den 24:e juli 2013 skrev Bruno Oliveira:
+1 for unified-push-java-client
Just do it
Douglas Campos wrote:
> I was doing a pre-release review and found out the artifact is called
> java-sender, and consequently this would be named like this
>
> GAV: org.jboss.aerogear.unifiedpush:java-sender:0.1.0
>
> is this the expected naming?
>
> I'd like to propose to change this before we release to java-client or
> unified-push-java-client.
>
> Thoughts?
>
--
abstractj
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <javascript:;>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
9:04 a.m.
Oks let's do it !
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Daniel Bevenius
<daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com>wrote:
+1 unified-push-java-client sounds good.
Den onsdagen den 24:e juli 2013 skrev Bruno Oliveira:
+1 for unified-push-java-client
>
> Just do it
>
> Douglas Campos wrote:
> > I was doing a pre-release review and found out the artifact is called
> > java-sender, and consequently this would be named like this
> >
> > GAV: org.jboss.aerogear.unifiedpush:java-sender:0.1.0
> >
> > is this the expected naming?
> >
> > I'd like to propose to change this before we release to java-client or
> > unified-push-java-client.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> --
> abstractj
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
9:09 a.m.
PR is here
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unified-push-java-client/pull/13
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com>wrote:
Oks let's do it !
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 unified-push-java-client sounds good.
>
> Den onsdagen den 24:e juli 2013 skrev Bruno Oliveira:
>
> +1 for unified-push-java-client
>>
>> Just do it
>>
>> Douglas Campos wrote:
>> > I was doing a pre-release review and found out the artifact is called
>> > java-sender, and consequently this would be named like this
>> >
>> > GAV: org.jboss.aerogear.unifiedpush:java-sender:0.1.0
>> >
>> > is this the expected naming?
>> >
>> > I'd like to propose to change this before we release to java-client or
>> > unified-push-java-client.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>>
>> --
>> abstractj
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
3922
days inactive
3922
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Bruno Oliveira -
Daniel Bevenius -
Douglas Campos -
Matthias Wessendorf -
Sebastien Blanc