>> *I think this is why people have pretty much universally adopted FQN for
bundle symbolic names, and I think the same reasoning applies here.*
Yes, you are right on this. However, there are quite a few differences
between feature names and symbolic names that I think we should take into
consider
On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Ioannis Canellos wrote:
>>
>> 2. Any feature distributed by a project needs to have that projects name in
>> the feature name. To take the aries-jndi example, if karaf names a feature
>> aries-jndi, and aries wants to publish a jndi feature themselves, what can
>>
>
> 2. Any feature distributed by a project needs to have that projects name in
> the feature name. To take the aries-jndi example, if karaf names a feature
> aries-jndi, and aries wants to publish a jndi feature themselves, what can
> they call it? I think karaf has to use "karaf-aries-jndi" an
;>
>> **
>> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
>> **
>> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/>; Committer & PMC
>> Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/>; Committer
>> Apache Gora <http://incubator.apache.org/gora/>; Commit
I don't understand your question. I was trying to say 2 completely separate
things:
1. I think but don't know that the subsystem spec expects that subsystem names
are like bsns. If this is true it might be a good idea to line up karaf
feature names for future compatibility with subsystems.
2
Hi David,
just to understand, is it not a Geronimo usage (I didn't take a look of
that in Geronimo) ?
I'm not sure that sub-systems will help.
On 10/13/2011 06:04 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ioannis Canellos wrote:
Hi David,
The fact that the features you mention
On Oct 13, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ioannis Canellos wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> The fact that the features you mentioned are provided by the Karaf doesn't
> mean that we need to prefix them with karaf.
> For example we can only use the project that implements those features and
> end up with something like
Hi David,
The fact that the features you mentioned are provided by the Karaf doesn't
mean that we need to prefix them with karaf.
For example we can only use the project that implements those features and
end up with something like this:
aries-jndi
aries-tx
spring-tx
camel-jpa
karaf-webconsole
w
I know I'm outvoted, but -1.
Please be sure that every name you choose has karaf in it somewhere for the
features from karaf. For instance the karaf feature setting up aries jndi
needs both karaf and aries in the name, e.g. karaf-aries-jndi, karaf-spring-*
Since the feature names all have "f
+1/-1 from my side; I've no problem with the new feature names, but it's
also OK for me to use the old structure.
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 14:07, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
> +1 for reverting to a more user-friendly naming, I kinda like the "project
> shortname"-"feature" syntax
+1 for reverting to a more user-friendly naming, I kinda like the "project
shortname"-"feature" syntax like karaf-obr or the like
regards, Achim
2011/10/13 Ioannis Canellos
> >
> > I think we should revert the name (I will do it if all are agree). If, as
> > David said, some feature name are am
>
> I think we should revert the name (I will do it if all are agree). If, as
> David said, some feature name are ambiguous (for instance jndi), I have no
> problem to change to more descriptive name (for instance, aries-jndi-service
> or whatever).
>
Yes, I agree on that and I think that Daniel m
Hi Ioannis,
I second you on that.
I agreed to use a full qualified feature name, but I don't like the
result as well.
FYI, to avoid to loose users, I created features name aliases.
I think we should revert the name (I will do it if all are agree). If,
as David said, some feature name are amb
gt; Thanks for having the patience to go through all of it :)
> --
> *Ioannis Canellos*
> *
> FuseSource <http://fusesource.com>;
>
> **
> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
> **
> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/>; Committer & PMC
> Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/>; Committer
> Apache Gora <http://incubator.apache.org/gora/>; Committer
> *
>
-
Mike Van
Mike Van's Open Source Technologies Blog
--
View this message in context:
http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/feature-names-are-potentially-ambiguous-tp3263950p3417458.html
Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:57:59 AM Ioannis Canellos wrote:
> Though I liked the idea of symbolic-name like features a lot, I somehow do
> not like the result.
I agree. I really don't like it either.I'd much prefer something
shorter, but still unique:
karaf-config
karaf-war
karaf-htt
I think a lot of the readability issues can be addressed by formatting,
certainly its easy to put each feature name and repo name on a new line for (a).
I think any solution has to allow every project using karaf to have it's own
features named framework, standard, enterprise, spring,, obr.
Though I liked the idea of symbolic-name like features a lot, I somehow do
not like the result.
What I do not like is that a lot of things have become unreadable and the
new feature names require way more effort to use.
Some examples:
*a) org.apache.karaf.features.cfg*
featuresBoot=org.apache.kar
nothing to add; +1 for both ideas. We should only add issues to not forget
about them :-)
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 14:59, Christian Schneider
wrote:
> Btw. that would be really cool if we could support
> completion of o.a.c to org.apache.camel :-)
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 18.08.2011 14:26, schrieb A
Btw. that would be really cool if we could support
completion of o.a.c to org.apache.camel :-)
Christian
Am 18.08.2011 14:26, schrieb Achim Nierbeck:
hm, I'm not sure,
but AFAIR the completion should help you also with the o.a.c stuff :-)
and if it doesn't we should make sure it does :)
rega
hm, I'm not sure,
but AFAIR the completion should help you also with the o.a.c stuff :-)
and if it doesn't we should make sure it does :)
regards, Achim
2011/8/18 Christian Schneider :
> Am 18.08.2011 08:11, schrieb David Jencks:
>>
>> Our feature names are quite short (e.g. "jndi") and it seems
On 18 August 2011 13:10, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Am 18.08.2011 08:11, schrieb David Jencks:
>>
>> Our feature names are quite short (e.g. "jndi") and it seems to me this is
>> likely to cause confusion when features get more widely adopted. Would it
>> make sense to change them to be more li
Am 18.08.2011 08:11, schrieb David Jencks:
Our feature names are quite short (e.g. "jndi") and it seems to me this is likely to
cause confusion when features get more widely adopted. Would it make sense to change them to be
more like typical symbolic names, eg. "org.apache.karaf.feature.jndi"?
FYI,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-819
On 08/18/2011 08:11 AM, David Jencks wrote:
Our feature names are quite short (e.g. "jndi") and it seems to me this is likely to
cause confusion when features get more widely adopted. Would it make sense to change them to be
more like typi
+1 this is absolutely true and will keep the pain away :-)
2011/8/18 Andreas Pieber :
> +1 for the request and
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 08:20, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>
>> If all are OK, I propose this change for Karaf 3.x.
>>
>
> +1 for the timing :-)
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
>
>>
>
+1 for the request and
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 08:20, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> If all are OK, I propose this change for Karaf 3.x.
>
+1 for the timing :-)
Kind regards,
Andreas
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 08/18/2011 08:11 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> Our feature names are quite short (e.
Hi David,
+1
If all are OK, I propose this change for Karaf 3.x.
Regards
JB
On 08/18/2011 08:11 AM, David Jencks wrote:
Our feature names are quite short (e.g. "jndi") and it seems to me this is likely to
cause confusion when features get more widely adopted. Would it make sense to change t
Our feature names are quite short (e.g. "jndi") and it seems to me this is
likely to cause confusion when features get more widely adopted. Would it make
sense to change them to be more like typical symbolic names, eg.
"org.apache.karaf.feature.jndi"?
thanks
david jencks
27 matches
Mail list logo
