Hi, we have a discussion going on at SLING-9999 that needs some resolving.
As far as I can see, there are the following proposals in the issue: #1 move the o.a.s.servlets.resolver.bundle.tracker package to another artifact #2 rename the package to something else #3 split up the package to move the ResourceType class to sling api As far as the positioning goes, I guess my summary would be: On the one hand, to not have the scripting bundles depend on the servlets.resolver (#1 above) and on the other hand (#2), would it be better to have the package name include "scripting" (I’m not sure we have to discuss #3 right now as that seems to be orthogonal)? Please correct me if I'm missing something (we could work with optional imports as well but that isn't the nicest way to handle dependencies). One option to achieve #1 is to introduce a servlets.api bundle. I guess the idea behind that one is that this way, the servlets.resolver doesn’t require the scripting.api and the scripting doesn’t require the servlets.resolver (just this new api bundle). Another way to do it is to move the package to scripting.api. Which solves it as well with the downside of having the servlets.resolver require the scripting.api. Granted, if #2 is taken into account (renaming the package to be the in scripting namespace) it makes sense. Ultimately, I guess the question for this list to get consensus on is: Do we want the servlets.resolver to have a dependency on scripting.api or do we rather introduce a new servlets.resolver.api bundle - with a possible tie-breaking subquestion of do we think the bundle.tracker api package should stay in the namespace it is in right now or should it move to the scripting namespace? Personally, I think the package namespace is a slightly better fit for the servlets resolver rather than the scripting and consequently, would go with the servlets.resolver.api bundle as a reasonable compromise. regards, Karl -- Karl Pauls karlpa...@gmail.com
