Re: [ebr-dev] Bundle Naming

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm still not sure I understand, so would
appreciate understanding ... how does a prefix on the bundle name, help
someone at runtime, if they use import-package (and, they don't have complete
control over what someone has installed there)? Or, perhaps another way
of asking what I am not understanding, what problem does this solve? (And,
which problems does it not solve?) 

Thanks, 




From:      
 Gunnar Wagenknecht
<gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 "Discussion channel
for EBR developers,        not for discussion
of individual bundles manifests" <ebr-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Date:      
 07/18/2014 01:54 AM
Subject:    
   Re: [ebr-dev]
Bundle Naming
Sent by:    
   ebr-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Yeah, makes sense.

So for the naming pattern … do we want to go with: <PREFIX><original-group-id>.<original-artifact-id>?
That would also become the bundle symbolic name.

Now what should we use a prefix? I’d suggest to not use "org.eclipse.ebr."
 but its shorter form "ebr_" (also note the underscore as
separator) because I like the shorter version more. But that’s just a
preference. It would be replaceable in a custom build anyway.

-Gunnar

Am 17.07.2014 um 23:27 schrieb Brian de Alwis <briandealwis@xxxxxxxxx>:

> With a couple of months of use of EBR, I have 2¢ to add to this discussion.
 I really think an EBR-specific prefix is a good thing. A number of
jars on Maven Central now have OSGi metadata, but some of it is very wrong.
 XStream (com.thoughtworks.xstream 1.4.7), for example, imports a
number of packages that should be marked as optional, such as sun.misc.
 Freemarker has similar problems.
> 
> The problem is that if we don’t mark our bundles differently then
it becomes confusing to differentiate between the original bundle and our
updated bundle.
> 
> Brian.
> 
> 
> On 8-Apr-2014, at 3:13 AM, David Bosschaert <david.bosschaert@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Gunnar Wagenknecht
>>> gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ebr-dev mailing list
>>> ebr-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ebr-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> ebr-dev mailing list
>> ebr-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ebr-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ebr-dev mailing list
> ebr-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ebr-dev

-- 
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





_______________________________________________
ebr-dev mailing list
ebr-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ebr-dev