Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The standard argument against a namespace like org.apache.osgi would be
whether or not some hypothetical other OSGi project at the ASF would ALSO
want to use that package namespace.
Is the intent of your Option #2 to separate common things under
org.apache.osgi and felix specific packages under org.apache.felix?
Yes, this was the basic premise.
I am fine with all three options (where the 3rd option is everything
under Felix).
Ultimately, I don't really think any approach is significantly better
than the other. This is a tree we are talking about and these sorts of
issues always result when trying to create a mapping to a hierarchy.
If there is a standard, then that is probably reason enough to adopt the
standard approach. However, it sounds to me like it is not clear if
there is a standard. The funny thing is, the current package naming
scheme was used because some people said that Apache preferred such an
approach.
I clearly don't know what the standard is.
-> richard
