On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Ioannis Canellos wrote: >> >> 2. Any feature distributed by a project needs to have that projects name in >> the feature name. To take the aries-jndi example, if karaf names a feature >> aries-jndi, and aries wants to publish a jndi feature themselves, what can >> they call it? I think karaf has to use "karaf-aries-jndi" and aries gets >> "aries-jndi". > > > imho, if aries shipped a feature, the way to go would be to reuse that > feature in Karaf and don't ship a different feature ourselves.
I don't understand your thinking. IIUC we already have a few features that contain only aries bundles. We're planning to release them for karaf 3, IIUC you want to name them things like aries-jndi version 3.0.0. Next week aries creates a similar feature and calls it aries-jndi version 3.0.0, and we pack it up in a feature repository we distribute. How do I know which feature I'm getting? I think this is why people have pretty much universally adopted FQN for bundle symbolic names, and I think the same reasoning applies here. BTW, I suggested the longer names when I started running into exactly this problem between karaf and geronimo features. thanks david jencks > > >> Of course one solution is to use a fully qualified name, and I don't think >> they are really any more complicated than these partly-qualified names, >> which is why I think we should keep them. > > > It's not about being complicated (though I think it can create some > confusion). It's about keeping things small and avoiding too much clutter. > > -- > *Ioannis Canellos* > * > FuseSource <http://fusesource.com> > > ** > Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com > ** > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer > Apache Gora <http://incubator.apache.org/gora/> Committer > *
