On 4/24/09 7:40 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I'd say the most known use case is axis, where all packages are
org.apache.axis(2) and still is a subproject of web services.
The list includes most of the webservices TLP, mina subprojects, etc...
I'd rather go with org.apache.karaf myself. It would avoid any
required renaming if ever going to TLP (I can see subprojects being
org.apache.xxx, but i don't really see a TLP using
org.apache.anothertlp.xxx). And unless we use the existing felix
resources (jira, confluence, etc...) it would be more consistent.
Most of the big subprojects have their own mailing list too. I don't
really think we need this at this point, but my point is just to
express the fact that subprojects can have a real identity. I think
it mostly depends on the "size" of the subprojectm and my thinking is
that Karaf is big enough to deserve its own identity, even as a
subproject.
Well, certainly, up until now, all of our subprojects do share
everything (e.g., mailing list, different components in JIRA), so that
is definitely not an issue now. When it becomes an issue, then the TLP
discussion will probably be the next step for sure.
Anyway, my concern here is not over what we want to do, but what we
should do from an Apache process perspective. I don't want Felix (the
project) creating some firestorm by being seen as implicitly promoting
subprojects to TLP.
-> richard
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 13:30, Carsten Ziegeler<[email protected]> wrote:
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Yes, it should be moved to trunk. We cannot base decisions on where to
put stuff with respect to size or other criteria, that doesn't really
make sense. We have subprojects, they go in trunk. That's all.
Yepp, it should go to trunk and as Karl suggested only current trunk of
Karaf should be moved here.
Also, I think your package name would have to be org.apache.felix.karaf.
I think this would be the rule, likewise it is not Apache Karaf, it is
Apache Felix Karaf.
Otherwise, the implication is that it is a top-level Apache project. Of
course, I don't care and if the Apache rules allow it, then I guess we
can debate it.
Hmm, I'm not sure if there are any rules. Afaik we can use any package
names we want (of course if it makes sense). There are other projects
at Apache which use different package names than their top level project
name (xbean from Geronimo being the most prominent). And they also call
it Apache XBean (http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean/index.html). So I
think as long as we don't clash with anything existing, we're fine.
The question is: what is the better option of the two? If we're pretty
sure that this will become TLP later on, using just Karaf (Apache Karaf,
org.apache.karaf) seems right - if we're unsure adding Felix to the
name, package makes more sense.
For now I would go with Apache Felix Karaf and org.apache.felix.karaf
even if this would mean to rename things once Karaf gets TLP (although
even then renaming of the packages would not be required).
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[email protected]
