Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Then I don't have a particular issue with it. Is there any benefit to
putting the osgi label in that namespace? If there were another OSGi
project within the ASF, would there be any benefit or detriment comparing
options 2 and 3 Would a Derby block be under org.apache.osgi.derby or
org.apache.derby.osgi? What do you envision being under the different
spaces?
I can't say I have put so much thought into.
As I said in my other message, the issue here is creating a single
hierarchy when many hierarchies are possible.
One can argue that all OSGi-related stuff should be under a top-level
OSGi package. Someone else can argue that all project-related stuff
should be under a top-level project package.
I see both arguments.
I personally prefer stuff that is project-neutral (but OSGi-related) to
go into a separate osgi package, but I can accept any structure. I just
want to reach [reasonable] consensus and move on. :-)
I can also see an argument for not using the "osgi" package name at all,
because perhaps in the future the name of the technology could change,
e.g., it is rolled into JSR 277, then we would be left with this "weird"
osgi package name.
Still, I don't know if we should worry about this now...we can't
anticipate everything.
-> richard
