Hi list, This is still a mess to find which component contribute what to some extension point. Here is a multi-part proposal to define naming conventions for those XML files.
If no one has any objection I'll start renaming files tomorrow according to the following policy: 1- Only use *-bundle.xml for contributions to extension points that have network connection parameters such as LDAP or SQL data source info that are worth having directly editable in the deployment folder and not inside a jar file. All other files should be stored in OSGI-INF folders of jar archives and should be registered in the matching META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file instead of being deployed as *-bundle.xml file by an ant task. 2- Default contribution files (eg: web actions, ecm types, workflow processes, ...) should all be gathered in the Nuxeo project whereas extension points definitions should be included in the OSGI-INF folder of the project that provides the host service. There is an exception for core extension contribs (such as core types for instance) that cannot be included in the Nuxeo project since they are core by definitions. 3- Contribution files should be named according to the following pattern: name-of-the-component-contrib.xml 4- Extension point definitions should be named according to the following pattern: name-of-the-component-framework.xml Alternatively we could use for points 3 and 4 respectively: name-of-the-component-extensions.xml for contribs to extension points defined somewhere else and name-of-the-component-definitions.xml for extension points definitions but this convention if more ambiguous and currently used the wrong way in Nuxeo for instance. Is there any convention in the OSGi / eclipse community on this matter? -- Olivier _______________________________________________ ECM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nuxeo.com/mailman/listinfo/ecm
