Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [] Bundle and Java package naming

+1 for taking the current Naming Conventions and making them general for all projects.  They’re very valuable guidelines and will help with both consistency and preventing name clashes.   


My preference is that we figure out a way to enforce what’s pretty much a de facto standard:  only Eclipse Platform components and project short names can exist in the top-level org.eclipse.* namespace.  It should be perfectly fine to have two bittorrent facilities in Eclipse, but this will only work well if the bundles includes the project names.  Since Platform is already holding some valuable parts of the org.eclipse namespace that can make for good project names, I also think it would be good for Platform to have to consult with whatever body governs the naming before using more (e.g., if a related project is in the proposal pipeline).




From: [] On Behalf Of John Arthorne
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:07 PM
Subject: [] Bundle and Java package naming


During today's architecture council meeting, I raised the topic of management of the org.eclipse.* namespace of bundle and package names. I just wanted to elaborate here so other architecture council members who were unable to attend can comment. We generally follow the convention that each project owns one or more "level three" namespaces (org.eclipse.<project>), but as far as I can tell, there is no formal management of the allocation of these names to projects. There is potential for confusion, or even runtime problems, if plug-ins from multiple projects end up with the same names, and the plug-ins end up being delivered together (for example in the Eclipse release train, or in Eclipse-based products). Doug raised the example of org.eclipse.pdt.*, which could mean Python tools, PHP tools, Perl tools, etc. I regularly run across cases where projects are assuming ownership of names other than org.eclipse.<theirOwnProjectName>.*.  Merely by way of example, I saw this note today about a plug-in in ECF called "org.eclipse.bittorrent":

This one is not likely to collide with other projects, but it illustrates that this does happen today. Other names, particularly three letter acronyms (TLAs), have a higher potential for collision across projects.  My question to the architecture council was: is there a need for more management of bundle and package names, and can the architecture council help in this area. For example, we could maintain a list of the name allocations so that projects can see what is available. Should this be managed by the EMO, possibly in consultation with the arch council? Can we help by taking the Eclipse top-level project naming conventions (, and generalize them into a set of conventions/guidelines for all Eclipse projects?

Thoughts, comments, flames?

Back to the top