[reSIProcate] directory reorg

[Derek MacDonald]

We decided that we preferred to keep it resip because:

 

-- resip is a token that has some meaning and not likely to collide with
anything

-- the primary user of the utility code is resip, and this will convey that

-- changing it is a massive PITA, and people are already used to resip::data
in their apps that use bits of resip

 

--Derek

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email and any files transmitted with it contains proprietary
information and, unless expressly stated otherwise, all contents and
attachments are confidential. This email is intended for the addressee(s)
only and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee,
any disclosure, distribution, printing or copying of the contents of this
email or its attachments, or any action taken in reliance on it, is
unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform
the sender immediately and then delete this email and any copies of it.
Thank you for your co-operation.

  _____  

From: resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Alan
Hawrylyshen
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:20 PM
To: Adam Roach
Cc: resiprocate; jason at iii.ca
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] directory reorg

 

I also like it, but have one additional question:

 

- Did we consider moving the rutil stuff into it's own namespace? (rutil)?

 

It seems to make more sense, I am also open to the argument that it would be
a massive port for all deployed code, and therefore, inspite of being a fine
idea, it is impractical.

 

Thanks

 

Alan

 

On 18-Aug-05, at 5:27 PM, Adam Roach wrote:





I have no strong concerns with this proposal.

 

/a

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20050819/97e7ddb1/attachment.htm>