Ah yes, you're right! Thanks, Jeremy. I guess in that case the id is
much less critical, and in fact being different from our usual pattern
is arguably a good thing.
On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:52, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
I thought blueprint-parser was just shaded into other bundle
projects and
wasn't a bundle itself.
On Jul 14, 2012 11:24 AM, "Holly Cummins" <[email protected]
>
wrote:
Hi all,
As I was preparing the most recent batch of bundle releases, I
noticed
that the artifact id for blueprint-parser doesn't follow the same
pattern as the rest of our artifact
ids - it's "blueprint-parser" rather than
"org.apache.aries.blueprint.parser". I know we discussed the group id
of the util bundle recently and decided that consistency with
previous
releases was more important than consistency with other bundles, but
the blueprint-parser id seems *really* inconsistent. I suspect users
would be pretty confused by the fact that the artifact id isn't the
same as the bundle symbolic name.
What do people think? Should we correct it before 1.0.0, or leave
it as it
is?
Holly
