Re: [ebr-dev] Bundle Naming

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think having "project name"
as part of the bundle name would get complicated for those that have a
need to "require bundle". 

I've not kept up with "ebr"
project but I seem to recall hearing that some bundle may be in "ebr"
and at then at some point some might move to "Orbit" ... so if
that happens, and the bundle name changes to fit Orbit conventions, then
all consumers would have to change their code, unless all consumers use
"import package". 

Is that the expectation? (And if so,
is it realistic?) 

Plus, if a goal is to "identify"
the source or provider of the bundle, I think there are other "OSGi
ways" of doing that (inside the MANIFEST.MF) that better fit with
other OSGi directives.

Just commenting ... to keep the discussion
going ... I'm sure there's pros and cons that I haven't thought of, but
feels awkward to me. 

Also, I don't want to leave the impression
that "Orbit just does its own thing" ... We do try and follow
what the original project does ... if they happen to produce OSGi bundles
... or what we would recommend to them, if they start producing OSGi bundles
... my point is it would be best if there was a consistent way of naming
bundles no matter where they come from, and while perfection would never
be achieved ... it seems a good goal? 
 



> I don't really see a big issue with adding org.eclipse.ebr
in front of
> the name. As you say the SpringSource EBR also have this. I think
that
> in some ways it could even be a benefit, as people would recognise
it
> as a 'trusted' provider of bundles for these jars :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> David
> 
> On 8 April 2014 06:02, Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Brian raised a good point recently in a different chat. I'd like
> to bring it up here.
> >
> > Currently - with the recipes - I'm following the Orbit naming
> conventions, i.e. producing bundle jar names from fully qualified
> package names. When I ran into issues where the full qualified 
> package name does not match the Maven group/artifact id at all I 
> went with the option properly representing the project the best. 
> Most of the time it was the Maven group id + artifact id.
> >
> > What do you think, should we introduce a common prefix for bundle
> names? For example, the bundles produced by Springsource all started
> with com.springsource. I hesitate to add "org.eclipse.ebr"
in front 
> of all bundle. But I have to admit that it's mostly for esthetic reasons.
> >
> > -Gunnar
> >