A simple tool to check this would be nice. We should try to keep the renaming to a minimum. Problematic packages I've seen so far are: o.a.w (in util) o.a.w.request (in core and request) o.a.w.util (in core and util) o.a.w.serialize (in core and util)
Best regards, Emond On Tuesday 21 February 2012 10:44:28 Andreas Pieber wrote: > not that I know of, but this should be a small and neat enough > python/perl/shell script to extract the list. I can give it a shot later > this week if you like. > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 08:37, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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
