As long as the functionality remains the same (the original package
name), I don't care much what it is called. Enrique didn't include the
whole script but that property/variable is very useful.
pkgArtifactId is more descriptive. Let's use it.
Tim
Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
I would think again about the shortName. First is not very suggestive
(name
of what?) and second it will make people invent new names for the same
stuff. I would go for something as
<pkgArtifactId>commons-attributes-api</pkgArtifactId> and the value to
always match the
original package.
Alin
On 3/13/07, Enrique Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/12/07, Alin Dreghiciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Take a look at an example:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-240
> I had to add a new property: osgiVersion because pakage version
does not
> always conforms to osgi format. As in the example above the package
> was 2.2but becasue of the pom version and snapshot the version will be
> 2.2.0001-SNAPSHOT which is invalid. so the osgi version reuses the
package
> version and adds .0
So, I think I'm caught up on these threads OK. I merged the above
latest round of thinking on the versioning scheme with the earlier
thread regarding the shortName. The gist of it is that with:
<properties>
<shortName>commons-attributes-api</shortName>
<pkgVersion>2.2</pkgVersion>
<pomVersion>0001</pomVersion>
<osgiVersion>${pkgVersion}.0</osgiVersion>
</properties>
...
<groupId>org.apache.felix.commons</groupId>
<artifactId>${pom.groupId}.${shortName}</artifactId>
<version>${osgiVersion}-${pomVersion}-SNAPSHOT</version>
... you get an artifact named:
org.apache.felix.commons.commons-attributes-api-2.2.0-0001-SNAPSHOT.jar
On the bright side, with the "SNAPSHOT" and the fact that
"commons-attributes-api" is about as long as they come to begin with,
I think this is a worst case scenario in terms of length.
The manifest looked good, including the package versioning.
Is that what we want? Did I get that right?
Enrique
