Hey, I second Brain on this one: As long as package names do not overlap and there are no circular dependencies between the bundles I see no reason to object.
Kind regards, Andeas On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 22:57, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > - renaming for OSGi > > Does anyone have an idea how many packages should be renamed ? > > Some people say that a package should have its module name in it (e.g. > > o.a.w.core.**). Other people say that we should rename just the > > packages which exist in two or more modules. > > I didn't see an issue for renaming in Jira, apologies if that was an > oversight. > > There is a "Bundle-SymbolicName" and "Bundle-Version" in the manifest. > Many OSGi projects use the SymbolicName as the base name for the Maven jar > (i.e. o.a.w.util). > > Then make sure that the Maven jar version complies to OSGi numbering > criteria and use it in both the manifest and the jar version. > http://semver.org/ is compatible with the OSGi numbering, so if that's > still the plan, all is good. > > As far as packages go, having the bundle SymbolicName as the package root > for the bundle is a good convention (by eliminating package naming > conflicts), but not required. > > If package names do not overlap and circular dependencies between bundles > are removed, the requirements for OSGi should be satisfiable. > > Brian
