[Javaweb-submit] Package gnu.posix?

[Julian Scheid]

Hello there,

as a by-product of another project I'm currently working on, 
I have written a POSIX-only alternative to java.lang.Process 
and java.lang.Runtime.exec(*).

This alternative interface allows for starting processes with 
an arbitrary number of file descriptors connected (the Java 
standard interface only connects stdin, stdout and stderr.)

It obviously consists of both a pure-Java component and a native
component.

I would like to publish this on savannah.gnu.org (as opposed 
to savannah.nongnu.org) and I'm also thinking about putting it 
into the gnu.* namespace.

Note that I've contributed to GNU Classpath (in fact, we may
know each other) but I'd like this extension to work, ideally,
with any VM and any classlib on any platform. This also means
that I may implement a Win32 native layer at a later time, 
though that layer will merely emulate Posix functionality. So
the "posix" attribute will still be valid.

My questions to you are:

Do you think it is a good idea to put this into the GNU
namespace to start with?

If yes, do you think "gnu.posix" would be a good choice of a
name? I think it would be descriptive, but it might be too
near the top. Perhaps "gnu.ext.posix" or something like that
would be better suited? 

Perhaps it would even make sense to add it to the "gnu.java" 
namespace, as it mimics behaviour from the java.lang tree, but 
as gnu.java is Classpath-only I expect this will collide with 
my plan to not limit it to free implementations.

So, let me know if you agree with "gnu.posix" or please suggest 
a different name.

I should add that I also wrote a package some months ago which 
allows for intercepting Posix signals in Java. I think about 
integrating this stuff into this package. In other words, the 
number of Posix-related classes may grow, so it seems justified 
to open a new package.

Finally, the project that this package is a spin-off of, a Java
interface to GnuPG, will definitely need a place in your 
namespace. 

This will be the subject of my next mail. Let me mention at this
point that I'd like to put it into "gnu.gnupg" (or "gnu.pg").

Thanks,

Julian