Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of grek@tuffmail.com designates
 216.86.168.179 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4814A250.1050907@tuffmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:57:04 +0200
From: Grzegorz Kossakowski <grek@tuffmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Preparing OSGi-ready artifacts
References: <481246E6.2040506@tuffmail.com> <4814A05C.7040904@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <4814A05C.7040904@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Carsten Ziegeler pisze:
> Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
>> This brings us to couple of questions:
>> 1. Do we want to have a policy to have only one base package (e.g. 
>> o.a.c.servletservice.*) per one module (artifact, JAR, you name it)?
>> 2. What OSGi folks can say about this situation? I remember that there 
>> was some requirement to have clean package structure in order to run 
>> in OSGi environment easily but I'm not expert in this area.
> There shouldn't be two different artifacts *exporting* the same package, 
> which means having classes intendet to be used by other artifacts in 
> this package. That's afaik the only requirement for OSGi.
> 
> This can be easily reached if a block uses o.a.c.{blockname} for its own 
> packages.

So do you think we need to rename o.a.c.callstack into o.a.c.servletservice.callstack ?


-- 
Grzegorz Kossakowski