On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 23:17 +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
...
> dev-java/ has currently 338 packages (and growing ;) ) - maybe it is a
> good idea to split it to multiple categories? (basic idea is much like
> with perl-core or www-apache categories).

I personally like the idea.  I don't see any harm in reorganizing into
something more manageable, although some might feel it unnecessary from
a "user" perspective.  I still like it, though...

As for your categories, I think they are a great start but I do have
some suggestions:

>  - java-vm/ - all JDKs and JREs (sun, blackdown, kaffe, etc.. jamvm,
> sablevm ?)

I like it...


>  - java-commons/ - all commons-* [ other possibility: java-jakarta - to
> have all commons-* and jakarta-* packages in it ]
>  - java-libs/ - all packages providing Java API for other libraries
> (like gnome-java, libgconf-java, libgtk-java, etc...)

I would probably combine these two into one category called java-libs/
instead of having them separated.  However, I don't have a big issue
with it either way.


>  - java-web - WWW related packages (like template engines, web
> frameworks) [ or java-www ]

I'd probably make this one java-www/ as the "www" is consistent with
current package categories in Portage.


>  - java-db - database access, persistence frameworks, JDBC

I like it...


>  - java-apps - standalone Java applications - like jvmstat, jython, etc)

Hmmm, I like this one too.  It is consistent with other package
categories like "www-apps/" and "sys-apps/".


> all the rest could be left in dev-java or moved (preffered?) to
> java-util/java-dev/java-misc.

I definitely agree that "dev-java/" should be changed.  First of all, I
like the idea of our categories being consistent with the convention
"java-*" as you outline above.  This way everything is grouped nicely
together in the tree.

Furthermore, in keeping with the "catch-all" theme that this final
category will most certainly be, I believe that "java-misc/" would be a
good choice.

Thoughts/comments?

~ Greg