OK. Is there any handy tool that automatically will check for these problems and tell us how many packages need to be renamed ? AFAIK there are no cyclic dependency between Wicket's modules.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Andreas Pieber <anpie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey, > > I second Brain on this one: As long as package names do not overlap and > there are no circular dependencies between the bundles I see no reason to > object. > > Kind regards, > Andeas > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 22:57, Brian Topping <topp...@codehaus.org> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 20, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote: >> >> > - renaming for OSGi >> > Does anyone have an idea how many packages should be renamed ? >> > Some people say that a package should have its module name in it (e.g. >> > o.a.w.core.**). Other people say that we should rename just the >> > packages which exist in two or more modules. >> >> I didn't see an issue for renaming in Jira, apologies if that was an >> oversight. >> >> There is a "Bundle-SymbolicName" and "Bundle-Version" in the manifest. >> Many OSGi projects use the SymbolicName as the base name for the Maven jar >> (i.e. o.a.w.util). >> >> Then make sure that the Maven jar version complies to OSGi numbering >> criteria and use it in both the manifest and the jar version. >> http://semver.org/ is compatible with the OSGi numbering, so if that's >> still the plan, all is good. >> >> As far as packages go, having the bundle SymbolicName as the package root >> for the bundle is a good convention (by eliminating package naming >> conflicts), but not required. >> >> If package names do not overlap and circular dependencies between bundles >> are removed, the requirements for OSGi should be satisfiable. >> >> Brian -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com
