Yes it is consistent with the pattern but it is not obvious to me at the first glance :-( It is good at least now I understand why there is the difference!
I agree push it down a directory level is more consistent with what we have in trunk. Thanks Lin On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > It's consistent with the pattern: modules that build bundles have an > artifactId of the bundle symbolic name; and it's consistent with the > pattern that those modules have simple names (e.g. util, > blueprint-api, jpa-container). I think the oddness is that it's the > exception to the rule: releasable modules (i.e. first level down from > the aries/trunk) have a simple name. > > We could push it down a directory level so util -> util/util-for-real > then we could have 'util-0.x-incubating' and a bundle called > org.apache.aries.util-0.x-incubating in that. In fact util > could/should be split into API/implementation bundles which would > definitely warrant moving it down a level in the directory structure.
