Hi, I find this an intriguing idea and would really position creating OSGi bundles as a first-class job of build Java modules.
Stuart, I assume you are a maven committer, so you continuing to maintain the plugin would be possible ? It would be a shame if we contribute the plugin to maven and it would then be orphaned... Regards Felix Am 28.02.2013 um 14:35 schrieb Stuart McCulloch: > During the "[DISCUSS] rename maven-bundle-plugin to bnd-maven-plugin" thread > Marcel and Guillaume came up with counter-suggestions involving contributing > the maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven. > > This idea has certain advantages - the plugin name would not be an issue > (assuming the Maven team were ok with 'bundle'==OSGi, as there are other > interpretations of 'bundle' such as resource bundles) and there's then a > chance we could get the 'bundle' packaging type recognized by default by > Maven (though this wouldn't necessarily be a done deal). It would also mean > that people wouldn't need to specify a groupId when adding the plugin to > their pom.xml and you could use the short form of the plugin name from the > command-line. > > The disadvantages are this would still involve a change of plugin coordinates > (org.apache.felix -> org.apache.maven.plugins) and any changes or > improvements would have to go through the Apache Maven project. > > There's also a question of whether the Apache Maven team would accept the > contribution... > > WDYT? > > -- > Cheers, Stuart > > On 28 Feb 2013, at 13:03, Marcel Offermans wrote: > >> On Feb 28, 2013, at 13:43 , Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:05, fbalicchia wrote: >>> >>>> I think it is the best choice to follow the naming convention. >>>> What I do not understand is why plugins can't be hosted by Apache >>> >>> The Apache Maven team prefer to keep the maven-NNN-plugin naming for >>> plugins developed and maintained by them (ie. those with groupId >>> org.apache.maven.plugins) whereas Maven plugins developed by other Apache >>> (or non-Apache) projects are encouraged to use NNN-maven-plugin naming. The >>> idea is to help avoid confusion about which plugins are directly supported >>> by Apache Maven team and which are supported elsewhere: >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg128850.html >>> >>> While renaming the plugin would be a courtesy to the Apache Maven team, it >>> is not mandatory if it would cause problems for downstream users - hence >>> this discussion thread. >> >> I would say, our users come first. Renaming the plugin causes them problems >> for no reason (to them) so let's not do that. >> >> Instead, we could also solve this by donating the plugin to the Apache Maven >> project. >> >> Greetings, Marcel -- Felix Meschberger | Principal Scientist | Adobe
