I hear you, although I would prefer the artifact id matches the directory name, but that really is an eclipse thing.
Alasdair On 9 March 2010 20:57, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > -- Alasdair Nottingham [email protected]
