IMO we should only push it down a level if in fact we split it into
multiple bundles.
Joe
On 9/1/10 9:58 AM, Lin Sun wrote:
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.
--
Joe
