Raul, following this logic, we should also group all streaming integration
into one streaming folder and so on… My vote is to keep the structure
consistent and flat for now, and if the community decides that grouping
should serve us better, we will restructure the project modules in one step.
Now, I am not sure I agree with the module names you suggested. If you look
at the module names in Ignite, you will notice that they are all very
concise (1 word) and to the point.
How about renaming your module folders as following:
- modules
|————— osgi
|————— osgi-karaf
|————— osgi-paxlogging
D.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Raul Kripalani <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Vladimir, I think it is unclear how one approach is better than the other
> > apart from just being different. I would avoid undertaking this type of
> > restructuring unless we have a really compelling reason.
> >
>
> I need three modules for OSGi:
>
> * ignite-osgi-support => provides an IgniteOsgiHelper in a manner similar
> to IgniteSpringHelper.
> * ignite-osgi-karaf-features => a Maven module of POM packaging which
> simply provides a features.xml for quick installation in Karaf.
> * ignite-osgi-paxlogging-fragment => a fragment for Pax Logging that
> exposes the extra packages from log4j that Ignite uses
> (o.a.log4j.[varia/xml]).
>
> It would clutter the modules folder to have them at that level. So I
> suggest:
>
> modules
> |---------- osgi
> |--------- support
> |--------- karaf-features
> |--------- paxlogging-fragment
>
> Regards,
>
> *Raúl Kripalani*
> PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and
> Messaging Engineer
> http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
> http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
>
