Hi Paul, Łukasz,
>> Could this be changed to use
>>
>> groupId + artifactId instead?
>>
>> Or is there a reason for not doing this?
The default package name in the templates is not set by enRoute, it is actually
using the “default default” from the Maven archetype system. I don’t actually
know whether it’s possible to change that default to a different dynamic value
(i.e. one using placeholders).
Can you raise this as an issue against the osgi/osgi.enroute project in GitHub
so that it goes on the list of things to look at before 7.0.0 is released?
> A common pattern I used for maven based projects is:
> symbolic name: ${groupId}.${artifactId}
The enRoute project template does this.
> export package: !${groupId}.${artifactId}.internal.*,
> ${groupId}.${artifactId}.*
This is bad practice as it frequently results in the export of packages that
should not be exported. R7 has fixed this completely through the use of the
@Export annotation (put it in your package-info.java along with your @Version
annotation). It is therefore no longer necessary to use the Export-Package or
-exportcontents instructions in projects. The enRoute project uses R7 and
expects you to use the @Export annotation.
Even in the absence of R7 you are much better off using:
-exportcontents: ${packages;versioned}
This way you only export packages that you have versioned, and therefore
actively chose to export.
> bundle name: ${project.name}
This is the default for the bnd-maven-plugin, and therefore enRoute.
Best Regards,
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
> On 15 Jun 2018, at 10:44, Łukasz Dywicki via osgi-dev
> <osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org> wrote:
>
> Hey Paul,
> Its really up to a project and convention you take, enroute asumes org +
> artifact but nothing prevents you from doing opposite.
>
> A common pattern I used for maven based projects is:
> symbolic name: ${groupId}.${artifactId}
> export package: !${groupId}.${artifactId}.internal.*,
> ${groupId}.${artifactId}.*
> bundle name: ${project.name}
>
> This allows to use compact artifact names while keeping some order of
> things. When navigating over repository contents you can always be
> certain that package org.code_house.foo.bar comes from
> org.code_house.foo group and bar artifact.
>
> This, however differs from time to time and different projects take
> their own path. For example karaf uses quite long and redundant artifact
> names which overlap with module root package. It works quite well there.
>
> Each of above approaches have it pros and cons.
>
> Cheers,
> Łukasz
>
>> On 15.06.2018 02:40, Paul F Fraser via osgi-dev wrote:
>> When creating new maven modules the default module package is set as
>>
>> org. + the artifactId
>>
>> Could this be changed to use
>>
>> groupId + artifactId instead?
>>
>> Or is there a reason for not doing this?
>>
>> Paul Fraser
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSGi Developer Mail List
>> osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
>> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
