That's great! I've just done a quick sanity check and everything compiles, starts and is ready to try out. Thanks.
For anyone wanting to take a look, the following new projects were added to the incubator. 1) org.eclipse.equinox.ds 2) org.eclipse.equinox.io 3) org.eclipse.equinox.ip 4) org.eclipse.equinox.util 5) org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin I had one cosmetic question for equinox.util. Currently the BSN is "org.eclipse.equinox.util.putifull" -- is there some reason it's not just org.eclipse.equinox.util? -Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/07/2007 06:41:23 AM: > In CVS under your proposed naming. > > -Pavlin > > > > > OK, I'm not particular about the names right now. Since we already > have a DS bundle lets just use org.eclipse.equinox.ds for > declarative services. > > I also like org.eclipse.equinox.ip for initial provisioning but > thought it might be to short :) but it is snappy. > > Pavlin, if these are ok with you please release with the names org. > eclipse.equinox.ds and org.eclipse.equinox.ip. As I said before it > is no big deal to rename the bundles if needed in the incubator later. > > Tom > > Chris Aniszczyk/Austin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 07/05/2007 09:34 PM > > Please respond to > Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> > > To > > Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> > > cc > > Subject > > Re: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions > > as an outsider, +1 for DS instead of SCR, there's like 5 people that > would get the SCR reference :) > > initialprovisioning is really long.... > > Cheers, > > --- > Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | http://mea-bloga. > blogspot.com | +1.860.839.2465 > > [image removed] Jeff McAffer ---07/05/2007 09:13:02 PM---I agree > with all/most Tom said. In the end we should look to have just one > DS implementation, Ultimately I suggest that it be > > [image removed] > From: > > [image removed] > Jeff McAffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [image removed] > To: > > [image removed] > Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> > > [image removed] > Date: > > [image removed] > 07/05/2007 09:13 PM > > [image removed] > Subject: > > [image removed] > Re: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions > > I agree with all/most Tom said. In the end we should look to have > just one DS implementation, Ultimately I suggest that it be called > o.e.e.ds. Never did like "scr". I'm a little bummed by o.e.e. > initialprovisioning. o.e.e.ip is snappier and I doubt that anyone > would get confused with Intelectual property, or Internet Protocol > or, ... In any event, it is a mild dislike so... > > Lets get the code in the incubator and move forward. > > Jeff > > Thomas Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 07/05/2007 03:51 PM > > Please respond to > Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> > > To > > Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> > > cc > > [image removed] > > Subject > > Re: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions > > [image removed] > > [image removed] > > > Hi Simon, > > > > I can commit the sources in the CVS. Here are the open issues > > that should be resolved prior moving code to the CVS. > > > > 1. Naming. > > Following the discussion the last proposed naming is: > > 1.1 org.eclipse.equionx.initialprovisioning > > other suggestion: org.eclipse.equionx.ip > > +1 for org.eclipse.equinox.initialprovisioning > > I think this name will reduce an confusion with the > rest of the equinox provisioning work. > > > 1.2 org.eclipse.equionx.ds > > other suggestion: org.eclipse.equionx.scr > > +1 for org.eclipse.equinox.scr > > > 1.3 org.eclipse.equinox.io > > 1.4 org.eclipse.equinox.util > > 1.5 org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin > > > > 2. Replacing. If we use the names org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin and > > org.eclipse.equionx.ds they collide with the current one. Can we replace > > the code in the CVS at this stage directly or temporary other names > > will be used? > > There is no problem replacing the current implementations in the > incubator. To be clear this is under the equinox-incubator directory > at dev.eclipse.org:/cvsroot/eclipse. At this point I suggest we > get the initial code released in the incubator. It is likely that > a number of refactorings are going be needed to follow other > eclipse coding practices (i.e. using "internal" package names etc.). > > I'm not fussed on getting all the names correct initially. We > can easily rename them if needed in the incubator. > > > > > 3. javax.microedition.io package > > Now it is in Connector services implementation. This is not a good > > choice because it is needed only on Java SE VMs. J2ME VMs > > contains that package. In our equinox distribution it is a fragment of > > the system bundle that is installed only on Java SE VMs. > > But initially we can put it inside the connector implementation. > > > > -Pavlin > > > > I think we should consider separating this out into another bundle and > import the packages from org.eclipse.equinox.io (but we can do this later). > I'm not sure why it has to be a system bundle fragment. I think we should > make it a normal bundle (called javax.microedition.io?). > > Tom _______________________________________________ > equinox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev > _______________________________________________ > equinox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev > _______________________________________________ > equinox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev > > _______________________________________________ > equinox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
