On Mar 9, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
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 ?
Why is naming the jar symbolicname-version.jar good practice?
Obviously if you think this then you will do it, but you've just
asserted that doing this is a good idea without any support.
It seems to me that the question kinda boils down to who wins, maven
or eclipse.
david jencks
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
