looks like that having the groupId in the artifact name is a common practice in eclipse plugins[1] and apache aries and sling[2] just to mention some popular OSGi projects.
To reply to Olivier's questions: > * change version scheme I think that switching to the semantic versioning scheme should not a pain at the current status, if we all agree that 0.1 means 0.1.0 > * generate correct MANIFEST.MF The bundle-plugin is already plugged in order to generate the OSGi metadata in the manifest, what is missing is taking care of reviewing them for each component... thoughts? TIA, have a nice saturday night fever! :) -Simo [1] https://gist.github.com/4242093 [2] https://gist.github.com/4242116 http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: > 2012/12/8 Simone Tripodi <[email protected]>: >> Hi all guys, >> >> I had a second thought on that and, while studying new topics at work, >> I changed my mind... I don't know what is your position about but - >> maybe Daniel agrees with me :P - but I'd propose a different way to >> rename artifactIds, a la OSGi, as shown below... >> >> WDYT? do you have any opinion/objection? > > -0 Perso I found this naming very redundant with the groupId. > > But I won't complain too much if you really want that :-) > > BTW if using osgi conventions (not sure it's a convention or usage or > something else) we must: > * change version scheme > * generate correct MANIFEST.MF > > >> Many thanks in advance! >> -Simo >> >> onami-parent -> org.apache.onami.parent >> >> onami-autobind-parent -> org.apache.onami.autobind.parent >> onami-autobind-aop -> org.apache.onami.autobind.aop >> onami-autobind-core -> org.apache.onami.autobind.core >> onami-scanner-parent -> org.apache.onami.autobind.scanner.parent >> onami-scanner-asm -> org.apache.onami.autobind.scanner.asm >> onami-autobind-configuration -> org.apache.onami.autobind.configuration >> onami-autobind-tests -> org.apache.onami.autobind.test >> >> onami-cache -> org.apache.onami.cache >> >> onami-configuration -> org.apache.onami.configuration >> >> onami-guava -> org.apache.onami.guava >> >> onami-lifecycle -> org.apache.onami.lifecycle >> >> onami-logging-parent -> org.apache.onami.logging.parent >> onami-logging-acl -> org.apache.onami.logging.acl >> onami-logging-core -> org.apache.onami.logging.core >> onami-logging-juli -> org.apache.onami.logging.juli >> onami-logging-log4j -> org.apache.onami.logging.log4j >> onami-logging-log4j2 -> org.apache.onami.logging.log4j2 >> onami-logging-slf4j -> org.apache.onami.logging.slf4j >> onami-logging-testfw -> org.apache.onami.logging.testfw >> >> onami-scheduler -> org.apache.onami.scheduler >> >> onami-spi -> org.apache.onami.spi >> >> onami-test -> org.apache.onami.test >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Christian Grobmeier >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Autobind: >>> >>> <artifactId>autobind-parent</artifactId> >>> >>> Loggin: >>> >>> <artifactId>onami-logging-log4j</artifactId> >>> <artifactId>onami-logging-parent</artifactId> >>> >>> Can we agree on either prefixing everything with onami or with >>> removing the prefix for every component? >>> >>> As there is a groupId containing org.apache.onami I would prefer >>> removing the prefix >>> >>> Any objections? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Christian >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.grobmeier.de >>> https://www.timeandbill.de > > > > -- > Olivier Lamy > Talend: http://coders.talend.com > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
