Hi Eric, Thinking a little more about it, maybe Felix would be a better place. At the very least it would avoid the confusion of having 2 slightly different feature model implementations in one community. If we ever want to use it in Sling we can always consume it without problem anyway.
So I'll propose it to the Felix community. Many thanks and kind regards, David On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 19:57, Eric Norman <enor...@apache.org> wrote: > Ok, well I am not going to hold up the progress with whatever name you > decide to use. > > I was thinking that Felix would be a better fit since the code doesn't > appear to be "sling" specific. > > Perhaps moving the standardized parts out of sling might get it more > visibility and adoption in other projects? > > Regards, > Eric > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 12:29 AM <dav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Eric, > > > > The repo is to implement the OSGi-specified feature service. There is > > already org.apache.sling.feature which is the Sling Feature Model, so > name > > is already taken. > > Also the Maven type for OSGi features is 'osgifeature', see > > https://osgi.github.io/osgi/cmpn/service.feature.html#d0e156462 so that > > seems to map as well to 'org.apache.sling.osgifeature'. > > > > But yes, naming is hard :) > > > > On where to put the code. I thought about this as well. Yes Apache Felix > > would be another possibility, or Apache Aries where there are also a lot > of > > OSGi components. I personally thought that it would make sense in the > Sling > > project since there is already a good community here using the Feature > > Model. Additionally, the code that I'm proposing to move into a Sling > repo > > was developed in the Sling whiteboard. > > However if the Sling community would prefer that I propose it to Apache > > Felix I can do that as well. > > > > Best regards, > > > > David > > > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 18:07, Eric Norman <enor...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> How about org.apache.sling.osgifeature > >>> Or alternatively org.apache.sling.feature.osgi > >>> > >> > >> For consistency, perhaps the "osgi" part of the name should be implied > >> and not part of the artifactId? For example, none of the > >> org.apache.felix.* artifacts that provide an implementation of an OSGi > >> specification include "osgi" in the artifact id. > >> > >> Which leads to another question... Should this module be managed as > part > >> of apache felix or sling? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Eric > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 8:14 AM <dav...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Robert, > >>> > >>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 12:16, Robert Munteanu <romb...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hi David, > >>> > > >>> > On Fri, 2021-08-06 at 07:31 +0100, dav...@apache.org wrote: > >>> > > To prepare this implementation so that it can be released and be a > >>> > > proper > >>> > > component, I would propose that it moves out of the Sling > Whiteboard > >>> > > into > >>> > > its own repository at Apache Sling. > >>> > > >>> > Sounds good to me. What is the proposed repository name? > >>> > > >>> > >>> How about org.apache.sling.osgifeature > >>> Or alternatively org.apache.sling.feature.osgi > >>> > >>> ? > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> David > >>> > >> >
