Re: [context-aware config] java package name

[Chetan Mehrotra]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Stefan Seifert  wrote:
> ok, let's take o.a.s.caconfig - it's short and still unique

+1

Chetan Mehrotra

RE: [context-aware config] java package name

[Stefan Seifert]

ok, let's take o.a.s.caconfig - it's short and still unique

-> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-6157

stefan

>-Original Message-
>From: Georg Henzler [mailto:ghenz...@apache.org]
>Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:55 PM
>To: dev@sling.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [context-aware config] java package name
>
>
>> just removing the ".".
>
>+1 for removing the dot (if it was to be kept, at least it would have to
>be "o.a.s.config.contextaware" instead of "o.a.s.contextaware.config" to
>be a meaningful hierarchy).
>
>regarding d) other proposals:
>
>As o.a.s.contextawareconfig gets fairly long, using the brief
>"o.a.s.caconfig" could be better. Although a little bit cryptic at
>first, it still clearly shows that it is about a configuration mechanism
>and people will quickly get used to what "ca" means. Also "caconfig"
>will be fairly unique when googling it.
>
>-Georg

Re: [context-aware config] java package name

[Georg Henzler]

just removing the ".".


+1 for removing the dot (if it was to be kept, at least it would have to 
be "o.a.s.config.contextaware" instead of "o.a.s.contextaware.config" to 
be a meaningful hierarchy).


regarding d) other proposals:

As o.a.s.contextawareconfig gets fairly long, using the brief 
"o.a.s.caconfig" could be better. Although a little bit cryptic at 
first, it still clearly shows that it is about a configuration mechanism 
and people will quickly get used to what "ca" means. Also "caconfig" 
will be fairly unique when googling it.


-Georg

RE: [context-aware config] java package name

[Stefan Seifert]

>Having an adjective as root package is rather strange and I'm not aware of
>one
>at Sling. If we really want to have context aware[1] in the package name
>I'm
>in favor of o.a.s.contextawareconfig.

than it would be

o.a.s.contextawareconfig  => "highlevel configuration API"
o.a.s.contextawareconfig.resource  => "lowlevel resource API"
o.a.s.contextawareconfig.annotation => java annotations

just removing the ".".

stefan

RE: [context-aware config] java package name

[Oliver Lietz]

On Friday 14 October 2016 14:20:06 Stefan Seifert wrote:
> >I see the point to distinguish between "highlevel configuration API" and
> >"lowlevel resource API" but even highlevel API is build around resources
> >(as
> >everything in Sling). Maybe there is another way/name to make the
> >difference
> >obvious.
> >
> >The "context-aware config" name still sounds too bulky to me but YMMV.
> >
> >1.) o.a.s.configuration (it will become *THE* way to do configuration in
> >Sling/AEM besides *OSGi* configurations)
> >
> >2.) o.a.s.resource.configuration (it's build around resources, how to diff
> >low
> >from high has to be solved)
> >
> >3.) o.a.s.contextawareconfig
> 
> @oliver: can you also live with carstens proposal:
> 
> o.a.s.contextaware.config, o.a.s.contextaware.resource,
> o.a.s.contextaware.config.annotation
> 
> this makes sense to me and gives the dot between contextaware and config a
> meaning.
> 
> your point seems to be mainly getting rid of the "contextaware" part, but
> this is what's all about. otherwise we have to restart the whole naming
> process again, but i think it's not worth the effort.

Having an adjective as root package is rather strange and I'm not aware of one 
at Sling. If we really want to have context aware[1] in the package name I'm 
in favor of o.a.s.contextawareconfig.

Regards,
O.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_awareness

> stefan

RE: [context-aware config] java package name

[Stefan Seifert]

>I see the point to distinguish between "highlevel configuration API" and
>"lowlevel resource API" but even highlevel API is build around resources
>(as
>everything in Sling). Maybe there is another way/name to make the
>difference
>obvious.
>
>The "context-aware config" name still sounds too bulky to me but YMMV.
>
>1.) o.a.s.configuration (it will become *THE* way to do configuration in
>Sling/AEM besides *OSGi* configurations)
>
>2.) o.a.s.resource.configuration (it's build around resources, how to diff
>low
>from high has to be solved)
>
>3.) o.a.s.contextawareconfig

@oliver: can you also live with carstens proposal:

o.a.s.contextaware.config, o.a.s.contextaware.resource,
o.a.s.contextaware.config.annotation

this makes sense to me and gives the dot between contextaware and config a 
meaning.

your point seems to be mainly getting rid of the "contextaware" part, but this 
is what's all about.
otherwise we have to restart the whole naming process again, but i think it's 
not worth the effort.

stefan

Re: [context-aware config] java package name

[Oliver Lietz]

On Friday 14 October 2016 13:14:02 Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Stefan Seifert wrote
> 
> > in [1] oliver mentioned that the current java package name is not
> > consistent/not ideal.
> > 
> > currently wie use
> > o.a.s.contextaware.config  => "highlevel configuration API"
> > o.a.s.contextaware.config.resource  => "lowlevel resource API"
> > 
> > bertrand and myself noted that the package name should included
> > "contextaware" somewhere, using only org.apache.sling.configuration is
> > too generic/misleading.
> > 
> > so, what should we use?
> > 
> > a) keep o.a.s.contextaware.config + o.a.s.contextaware.config.resource
> > 
> > b) switch to o.a.s.contextawareconfig + o.a.s.contextawareconfig.resource
> > to get rid of the additional dot that is a bit inconsistent
> > 
> > c) switch to o.a.s.configuration + o.a.s.configuration.resource which is
> > misleading as it applies only to context-aware config
> > 
> > d) other proposals?
> > 
> > i hope we find a consensus in the next hours... or we just stick with a)
> 
> As noted in the other thread, my proposal would be:
> 
> o.a.s.contextaware.config, o.a.s.contextaware.resource,
> o.a.s.contextaware.config.annotation
> 
> So similar to a) but with moving resource one level down.
> 
> Just to make it more difficult to decide
> 
> a) or b) are good as well
> 
> The important point is that we don't use "configuration" as this is
> confusing and separate the resource part from the settings (config).

I see the point to distinguish between "highlevel configuration API" and 
"lowlevel resource API" but even highlevel API is build around resources (as 
everything in Sling). Maybe there is another way/name to make the difference 
obvious.

The "context-aware config" name still sounds too bulky to me but YMMV.

1.) o.a.s.configuration (it will become *THE* way to do configuration in 
Sling/AEM besides *OSGi* configurations)

2.) o.a.s.resource.configuration (it's build around resources, how to diff low 
from high has to be solved)

3.) o.a.s.contextawareconfig

Sorry for the noise.

O.

> Carsten

Re: [context-aware config] java package name

[Carsten Ziegeler]

Stefan Seifert wrote
> in [1] oliver mentioned that the current java package name is not 
> consistent/not ideal.
> 
> currently wie use
> o.a.s.contextaware.config  => "highlevel configuration API"
> o.a.s.contextaware.config.resource  => "lowlevel resource API"
> 
> bertrand and myself noted that the package name should included 
> "contextaware" somewhere, using only org.apache.sling.configuration is too 
> generic/misleading.
> 
> so, what should we use?
> 
> a) keep o.a.s.contextaware.config + o.a.s.contextaware.config.resource
> 
> b) switch to o.a.s.contextawareconfig + o.a.s.contextawareconfig.resource to 
> get rid of the additional dot that is a bit inconsistent
> 
> c) switch to o.a.s.configuration + o.a.s.configuration.resource which is 
> misleading as it applies only to context-aware config
> 
> d) other proposals?
> 
> i hope we find a consensus in the next hours... or we just stick with a)
> 
As noted in the other thread, my proposal would be:

o.a.s.contextaware.config, o.a.s.contextaware.resource,
o.a.s.contextaware.config.annotation

So similar to a) but with moving resource one level down.

Just to make it more difficult to decide

a) or b) are good as well

The important point is that we don't use "configuration" as this is
confusing and separate the resource part from the settings (config).

Carsten

-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziege...@apache.org