I think the reason is that the bundle symbolic name is the unique id of the bundle. It has to be globally unique. When you use a non OSGi environment, you don't care about the jar name, you can simply rename it and it won't hurt anyone. In OSGi, the name of the jar doesn't matter either, but the symbolic name does. A good practice is to have the jar be named symbolicname-version.jar which ease the identification. But the constraint of uniqueness on the symbolic name kinda forces the use of the org.apache.aries.xxx naming convention for the symbolic name, hence for the artifact.
Makes sense ? On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 21:20, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote: > >> Maven insists on naming the jar artifactid-version.jar since we wanted our >> jars to follow the bundle_symolicname-version.jar convention it forces >> duplication in the artifact id. >> >> This is why I was asking if we could get the jar name to be generated from >> the group and artifact id on IRC last week. > > That's not really answering my question. artifactid is essentially the jar > file name and trying to get maven to act otherwise, is just going to have a > bad ending... So, to rephrase in your terms, why does the jar file name need > to follow the current naming convention? > > --kevan -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
