Re: SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

Hi, On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, By analogy with http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/ReferenceNamespaces, should we agree on a prefix such as org.apache.sling.capability.MMM for our capability names, where MMM is the module name like

Re: SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

Hi I think the capability here really says „this bundle implements Sightly Language Spec 1.1“ And since this spec is outside of Sling at [1] and commonly referred to as sightly.io I would think we should be using a namespace which matches the Sightly Language Spec and is not implementation

SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

Hi, By analogy with http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/ReferenceNamespaces, should we agree on a prefix such as org.apache.sling.capability.MMM for our capability names, where MMM is the module name like sightly? -Bertrand