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.
I don't see the need for that either, and I noticed Karaf has done away with that. I guess there could be an issue if an IDE imported all the modules it finds as top level projects, then there would more likely be duplicates (e.g. core, api). The only maven elipse plugin I've been using is m2eclipse which uses the artifact id anyway. So I'd be happy to remove the <parent>- prefix to child modules. > > Regards, > Alan > >
