I agree Alasdair
On 1 Sep 2010, at 15:17, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
