I don't think it is fair to claim it is maven or eclipse winning. Eclipse is not the only group that use this convention. It is also used by felix, and I have been using the convention since I first worked on OSGi 5 years ago. It is pretty common.
It is good practice because it makes it quick and easy to identify the identity of the bundle from the jar name, in a structure where you have multiple bundles in a directory it ensures you do not end up replacing one bundle with another which could happen if the jar name is not unique enough. It is my understanding that it is good practice to have the artifact id in maven unique in any case so people who gather jars together in assemblies do not end up replacing jars by mistake. That is what this achieves. Alasdair On 9 March 2010 20:43, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > -- Alasdair Nottingham [email protected]
