On Mar 9, 2010, at 12:43 PM, David Jencks 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.
Seems like a good practice to me because I can, at a glance, have a
good idea as to what's inside the bundle/jar.
OT: what is irritating to me is how we duplicate the sub-project name,
e.g. jmx/jmx-core. I use shells often and when I traverse directories
it's irritating.
Regards,
Alan
