My vote doesn't count either :) I guess my point was that the packages should be org.apache.felix.* or org.apache.osgi.*, not a mix of the two.
Ed -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project) I guess I'm not clear on why it all can't be org.apache.felix, including bundles and services provided by felix. My vote doesn't count but if I saw source code named org.apache.osgi I'd start looking for it at http://osgi.apache.org. If I couldn't find it I'd then go into subversion looking at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/osgi. Then I'd give up and go home. Ralph Ed Anuff wrote: >+1 for option #1 > >it makes it easier to organize the files, since all the files are under >org/apache/osgi/ > >Ed > >-----Original Message----- >From: Richard S. Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:51 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this >project) > >I am not against renaming the packages, but it would be nice if we could > >make this decision once and stick to it. We already discussed this and >agreed on the current package naming scheme. I waited to commit source >so we could start fresh...so much for that. :-) > >We have two options that are only slightly different. > >Option #1: > > org.apache.osgi.framework > org.apache.osgi.bundle > org.apache.osgi.service > ... > >Option #2: > > org.apache.felix > org.apache.osgi.bundle > org.apache.osgi.service > >The benefit of the #1 is a single package hierarchy that relates >everything in a clear and explicit way. The benefits of #2 is shorter >package names for the framework and some branding. > >Please review the mailing list archive for other arguments. > >Let's take a final vote so we can wrap this up and move on to more >important things. > >-> richard > > >Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > > >>Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Wednesday 17 August 2005 02:36, Richard S. Hall wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Bennett, Timothy (JIS - Applications) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Our previous package naming conventions still hold despite the >>>>>renaming >>>>>of the project, correct? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Yes. I had already renamed packages and there were no packages named >>>>oscar, so the name change has not affected package naming at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>This is somewhat not inline with the standard procedures at Apache. >>>Although there are both valid exceptions (standards) and exceptions >>>for various less obvious reasons (mistakes, over looked, changed >>>homes, etc). >>> >>>I think the Incubator PMC could give some guidance whether >>>org.apache.osgi or org.apache.felix can/should/must be used. >>> >>>Personally, I would favour a solution where the Felix implementation >>>sits in org.apache.felix and bundles are placed in org.apache.osgi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>+1, for the reasons mentioned here and the follow-ups: ASF standard >>policy and branding. Package names should reflect the projet they >>orginate from and not the specification they implement, e.g. Tomcat >>isn't in org.apache.servlets and Xerces isn't in org.apache.jaxp. >> >>Furthermore, I think our goal and the potential of this projet is to >>become a top-level project that hosts both the framework and bundle >>subprojects. That would be felix.apache.org and not osgi.apache.org. >> >>Sylvain >> >> >> > > > >
