I went ahead and purchased <a href="http://openid4java.org">openid4java.org</a> with regards to our Maven repository name spacing concerns. In the past when domains have been talked about on the web I have found randoms seems to buy them.
<br><br>Should we decide to go down this route in the future, this is now an option for us.<br><br>This weekend in Australia
is a long holiday, however I will get a DNS server configured and setup that
will redirect to the OpenID4Java Google Code site. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Justen<br><br>-- <br>Justen Stepka<br><a href="http://www.jstepka.name/blog/">http://www.jstepka.name/blog/</a><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/5/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Recordon, David</b> <<a href="mailto:drecordon@verisign.com">
drecordon@verisign.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">+1, I feel it should either use org.sxip, com.sxip
, or the proposal of<br>org.openid4java.<br><br>OpenID.net should not be specifically endorsing any specific<br>implementation, just as the foundation will not be creating libraries<br>itself. There must be a seperation between the OpenID protocol and
<br>implementations of it. Otherwise who is to say what is the official<br>Java OpenID implementation?<br><br>--David<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:general-bounces@openid.net">general-bounces@openid.net
</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces@openid.net">general-bounces@openid.net</a>] On<br>Behalf Of Johannes Ernst<br>Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:03 PM<br>To: openid-general<br>Subject: Re: [OpenID] use of net.openid
vs com.sxip for Java libraries<br><br>Just because I implement an HTTP server doesn't mean I get to put things<br>into the org.w3c namespace, does it?<br><br>What's wrong with using the project name? [I also thought that
<br><a href="http://openid.net">openid.net</a> was not in the business of constructing, or endorsing<br>software implementations.]<br><br>On Apr 3, 2007, at 16:36, Josh Hoyt wrote:<br><br>> On 4/3/07, David Fuelling <
<a href="mailto:sappenin@gmail.com">sappenin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> +1 to using net.openid (in some form or fashion) in the package<br>>> name. As<br>>> you say, it conveys that this is a community project that everyone
<br>>> can participate in and use. Maybe to prevent collisions, the<br>>> openid4java code should sit in 'net.openid.sxip' or<br>>> 'net.openid.openid4java'<br>>> package...?<br>>
<br>> There is at least one more Java OpenID 2 implementation (not to<br>> mention OpenID 1 implementations), so I think a little more<br>> namespacing than just net.openid (such as the net.openid.openid4java<br>
> that you suggested) is appropriate. In general, it's probably a good<br>> idea for the OpenID foundation to have a policy about managing its<br>> namespaces, but I think the people who are working on the foundation
<br>> are currently in the process of frying larger fishes.<br>><br>> Josh<br><br></blockquote></div><br>