Finally I had the minutes to hack anything together. The script could be found here [1] and shows the following conflicts (and I'm positively surprised by the low number :-)):
Package: org.apache.wicket.request.handler.logger in wicket-core, wicket-request, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.string.interpolator in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.request.mapper in wicket-core, wicket-request, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.resource in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.io in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.request.handler in wicket-core, wicket-request, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.file in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.request in wicket-core, wicket-request, Package: org.apache.wicket in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.string in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.crypt in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.lang in wicket-core, wicket-util, Kind regards, Andreas [1] https://gist.github.com/1977817 On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:44, Andreas Pieber <anpie...@gmail.com> 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 > >
