Glad to see you are still around and
reading Alex :-) Superficially one could call foul here but more
careful examination of two JARs in question shows that they are in fact
different things. In particular, the Orbit JAR is an OSGi bundle.
While the code is the same, normal users are unlikely to encounter
the two in the same context. The raw one from Apache just does not
run in OSGi asis (so Eclipse users should have little interest in it) and
while someone could take the one from Orbit and use it as a normal JAR,
its not clear why they would come to Eclipse to get function that is available
from Apache just fine. The point is to reduce/eliminate confusion.
Here we trade off confusion of having two logging JARs that are different
(one is a bundle, one is not) and have different names with the confusion
of having two things that are different but have the same name. Choice
seems easy to me.
If Apache were to produce bundles for
these things then we would rejoice, delete our copies in Orbit and reship
what they ship asis. As it is, the logging JAR in the maven repo
is not a bundle and it would have been incorrect of us to modify the file
(by adding the manifest info) and name it the same.
p.s, We toiled considerably over the
naming of these bundles (between org.apache... and org.eclipse...) and
in the end, for various reasons that are documented around Orbit, chose
to give nod to the originator and use org.apache. Of course both
approaches have downsides and I don't want to relive that discussion. If
the Apache teams do eventually choose to bundle their stuff and happen
to use a different JAR naming convention then we'll have to eat the change
(assuming it does not result in name clashes)
<alex.blewitt@xxxxxxxxx> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
01/08/2008 04:21 AM
Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
"Equinox development mailing list"
Re: [equinox-dev] Maven and all that
[was: Jetty and commons logging]
On Jan 7, 2008 10:33 PM, Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Personally I would find it hard to in any way sanction a repo of any
> that resulted in people getting JARs with names different than what
You mean like someone downloading log4j-1.2.13.jar, and instead of
calling it the same name: