> > How about org.apache.sling.osgifeature > Or alternatively org.apache.sling.feature.osgi >
For consistency, perhaps the "osgi" part of the name should be implied and not part of the artifactId? For example, none of the org.apache.felix.* artifacts that provide an implementation of an OSGi specification include "osgi" in the artifact id. Which leads to another question... Should this module be managed as part of apache felix or sling? Regards, Eric On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 8:14 AM <dav...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 12:16, Robert Munteanu <romb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > On Fri, 2021-08-06 at 07:31 +0100, dav...@apache.org wrote: > > > To prepare this implementation so that it can be released and be a > > > proper > > > component, I would propose that it moves out of the Sling Whiteboard > > > into > > > its own repository at Apache Sling. > > > > Sounds good to me. What is the proposed repository name? > > > > How about org.apache.sling.osgifeature > Or alternatively org.apache.sling.feature.osgi > > ? > > Best regards, > > David >
