On 7/25/2005 8:11 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Bennett, Timothy (JIS - Applications) wrote:
Terrific. I'll work on getting my code committed sometime today.
I may
have some questions about package names the project has decided to use
and other housekeeping stuff like that.
I'm excited and honored to be part of this team. Thanks for vote of
confidence. The work that Richard and his team have done so far on
the
OSGi spec and the Oscar implementation is really impressive.
"My team" says, "Thanks." :-)
Speaking of package names, I have started to go through and rename
some packages in the Oscar source code. For example:
org.ungoverned ==> org.apache.osgi
org.ungoverned.oscar ==> org.apache.osgi.framework
The two above substitutions will pretty much tell you how every
package is renamed in the current Oscar 2.0 code.
I expect at some time we will also have:
org.apache.osgi.service
org.apache.osgi.bundle
Which will contain service definitions and bundle implementations,
respectively.
Just to be clear, you want to use the org.apache.osgi package, rather
than org.apache.oscar? IMO that would fit a bit better into Apache
package naming conventions, to the extent they exist.
Thoughts?
org.apache.osgi is preferrable.
What about org.apache.felix? I loved that tv show...
Regards,
Alan
