+1 for option #1
1) decouples package naming from higher-level "marketing" name,
isolating POMs, Ant, bundle manifests, doco, and code from future changes.
2) already discussed on this list.
3) easier to organize.
Enrique
Ed Anuff wrote:
+1 for option #1
it makes it easier to organize the files, since all the files are under
org/apache/osgi/
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard S. Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:51 PM
To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this
project)
I am not against renaming the packages, but it would be nice if we could
make this decision once and stick to it. We already discussed this and
agreed on the current package naming scheme. I waited to commit source
so we could start fresh...so much for that. :-)
We have two options that are only slightly different.
Option #1:
org.apache.osgi.framework
org.apache.osgi.bundle
org.apache.osgi.service
...
Option #2:
org.apache.felix
org.apache.osgi.bundle
org.apache.osgi.service
The benefit of the #1 is a single package hierarchy that relates
everything in a clear and explicit way. The benefits of #2 is shorter
package names for the framework and some branding.
Please review the mailing list archive for other arguments.
Let's take a final vote so we can wrap this up and move on to more
important things.
-> richard
