| Re[2]: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions |
In CVS under your proposed naming.
-Pavlin
|
> |
OK, I'm not particular about the names right now. Since we already have a DS bundle lets just use org.eclipse.equinox.ds for declarative services. I also like org.eclipse.equinox.ip for initial provisioning but thought it might be to short :) but it is snappy. Pavlin, if these are ok with you please release with the names org.eclipse.equinox.ds and org.eclipse.equinox.ip. As I said before it is no big deal to rename the bundles if needed in the incubator later. Tom
as an outsider, +1 for DS instead of SCR, there's like 5 people that would get the SCR reference :) initialprovisioning is really long.... Cheers, --- Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | http://mea-bloga.blogspot.com | +1.860.839.2465
I agree with all/most Tom said. In the end we should look to have just one DS implementation, Ultimately I suggest that it be called o.e.e.ds. Never did like "scr". I'm a little bummed by o.e.e.initialprovisioning. o.e.e.ip is snappier and I doubt that anyone would get confused with Intelectual property, or Internet Protocol or, ... In any event, it is a mild dislike so... Lets get the code in the incubator and move forward. Jeff
> Hi Simon, > > I can commit the sources in the CVS. Here are the open issues > that should be resolved prior moving code to the CVS. > > 1. Naming. > Following the discussion the last proposed naming is: > 1.1 org.eclipse.equionx.initialprovisioning > other suggestion: org.eclipse.equionx.ip +1 for org.eclipse.equinox.initialprovisioning I think this name will reduce an confusion with the rest of the equinox provisioning work. > 1.2 org.eclipse.equionx.ds > other suggestion: org.eclipse.equionx.scr +1 for org.eclipse.equinox.scr > 1.3 org.eclipse.equinox.io > 1.4 org.eclipse.equinox.util > 1.5 org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin > > 2. Replacing. If we use the names org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin and > org.eclipse.equionx.ds they collide with the current one. Can we replace > the code in the CVS at this stage directly or temporary other names > will be used? There is no problem replacing the current implementations in the incubator. To be clear this is under the equinox-incubator directory at dev.eclipse.org:/cvsroot/eclipse. At this point I suggest we get the initial code released in the incubator. It is likely that a number of refactorings are going be needed to follow other eclipse coding practices (i.e. using "internal" package names etc.). I'm not fussed on getting all the names correct initially. We can easily rename them if needed in the incubator. > > 3. javax.microedition.io package > Now it is in Connector services implementation. This is not a good > choice because it is needed only on Java SE VMs. J2ME VMs > contains that package. In our equinox distribution it is a fragment of > the system bundle that is installed only on Java SE VMs. > But initially we can put it inside the connector implementation. > > -Pavlin > I think we should consider separating this out into another bundle and import the packages from org.eclipse.equinox.io (but we can do this later). I'm not sure why it has to be a system bundle fragment. I think we should make it a normal bundle (called javax.microedition.io?). Tom _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev |
