After considering all the comments I think we better change the bundle symbolic name to be the synapse-transports followed by the version.
Thanks for all the comments... Ruwan On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Afkham Azeez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think having bundle names such as > org.apache.synapse.transport_SNAPSHOT.jar is just a convention, mainly > adopted by Eclipse Equinox. Some projects like WSO2 Carbon ( > http://wso2.org/projects/carbon) have adopted this convention to the > extent that even the Maven2 modules/folders have this convention ( > https://wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon), but there is no hard and fast > rule to adopt it. > > Thanks > Azeez > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Saminda Abeyruwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> >> >> 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/ >>> >> >> > > > -- > Thanks > Afkham Azeez > > http://afkham.org > http://www.wso2.org > GPG Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9 B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0760 > -- Ruwan Linton http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform" http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
