Re: SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

2015-01-28 Thread Felix Meschberger
Hi I think the capability here really says „this bundle implements Sightly Language Spec 1.1“ And since this spec is outside of Sling at [1] and commonly referred to as sightly.io I would think we should be using a namespace which matches the Sightly Language Spec and is not implementation spec

Re: SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

2015-01-28 Thread Robert Munteanu
Hi, On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > By analogy with > http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/ReferenceNamespaces, should we > agree on a prefix such as "org.apache.sling.capability.MMM" for our > capability names, where MMM is the module name like "sightly"? I d

SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

2015-01-27 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi, By analogy with http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/ReferenceNamespaces, should we agree on a prefix such as "org.apache.sling.capability.MMM" for our capability names, where MMM is the module name like "sightly"? -Bertrand