I mean since CXF modules are already OSGi bundles, so we don’t have such split-package issues between different modules, so use the common rule(root package name) as automatic-module-name in each CXF module make sense to us for now.
Thanks! －－－－－－－－－－－－－ Freeman(Yue) Fang Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > On May 23, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Freeman Fang <freeman.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yep, I think we should use the common root package for each module. > －－－－－－－－－－－－－ > Freeman(Yue) Fang > > Red Hat, Inc. > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Dennis Kieselhorst <d...@apache.org >> <mailto:d...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi Andriy! >> >>> Haven't started work on automatic module names yet, my bad. But we >>> certainly could do that for >>> the plugin, the only thing we need to do is to agree on naming convention >>> to follow. Like f.e., >>> just to throw some ideas: cxf.xjc, cxf.core, cxf.cdi, cxf.opentracing, >>> cxf.clustering, cxf.jaxrs.client, >>> cxf.jaxrs.frontend, ... What do you think, guys? >> >> Shouldn't we prefix it with org.apache, e.g. org.apache.cxf.xjc, >> org.apache.cxf.core, ...? >> >> Regards >> Dennis >
