On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Ruwan Linton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Asankha/Saminda, > > I just wanted the OSGi bundles to be in its standard way and it is possible > to understand the artifact names that are already there, but if we go with > that structure then the bundle names are going to be > synapse-core_SNAPSHOT.jar and so on which is not the standard of OSGi. > There is no accepted norm to publish bundles as org.foo.bar_<versio>.jar. People just do it for convenience and nothing more. Using bundle names as prior is not a standard of OSGi, merely a convenience way of describing bundle information. Saminda > > > I will try to create two artifacts one as the OSGi bundle and the other as > a pure jar file. > > Thanks, > Ruwan > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Saminda Abeyruwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> IMHO, Synapse folks can keep the physical names of MVN artifacts as it is. >> Physical names are opaque and wouldn't reflect much information w.r.t to >> OSGi standards. >> >> Even the bundle-symbolicName can be anything and doesn't need to follow >> strict patterns. Normally when we create a bundle, for ex: consider the >> following example, >> >> if the package structure of a project >> +- org >> +- foo >> +- bar >> +- internal >> +- Activator.jar >> +- Foo.jar >> .. >> +- car >> +- Foo1.java >> >> We normally select the bundle-symbolicName as "org.foo.bar". As this could >> be considered as the parent of all other packages. Hence, when a >> user/developer looking the meta-date of the bundle, one be able to get a >> good understanding of the packaging structure. >> >> In order to make the life easy for user/developer who use this bundles, >> the physical name of the bundle also named with the bundle-symbolicName. >> This is just a convenience factor for users/developers. >> >> If someone adheres to prior way of naming bundles, it's very convenient to >> distinguish bundles. Ex: org.foo.bar Vs org.foo.bar.ui. >> >> >> In-order to achieve this we will need to change the names of the artifacts >>> to the following format. >>> >>> synapse-transport-SNAPSHOT.jar ==> >>> org.apache.synapse.transports-SNAPSHOT.jar >>> synapse-core-SNAPSHOT.jar ==> org.apache.synapse.core-SNAPSHOT.jar >>> >>> and so on.... WDYT? >>> >>> >>> Awwww.. I personally don't like the above file names at all.. if OSGi >>> cannot understand them, they should fix it.. can we raise a JIRA against it? >>> >>> >> >> Any OSGi implementation can understand the previous names. I believe >> Ruwan is trying to make the names more self informative and descriptive. >> >> >>> Sometime back we did a lot to be Maven 2 compatible across many >>> projects.. I don't want to change everything now just so that OSGi >>> understands them.. >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> However, if you can generate a build target that generates these OSGi >>> bundles on some profile, as a copy of the existing artifacts - and we upload >>> them to maven 2 etc, - I am totally fine with that.. is that possible? >>> >> >> +1. Since Synapse is quite famous around the community and it's not IMHO >> time to change the names of the main artifacts. As Asankha has said, it's >> worth to build the OSGi bundles separately using MVN semantics and used by >> OSGi community. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Saminda >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Ruwan Linton > http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform" > http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/ >
