Mailing-List: contact oscar-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <430447E2.9050006@dashorst.dds.nl>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:33:38 +0200
From: Martijn Dashorst <martijn@dashorst.dds.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this
 project)
References: <C9B41A4AFD8DC441B8D62DA7EC801603016616CA@jis06248.jis.org>
 <4302322E.60602@ungoverned.org> <200508170339.46413.niclas@hedhman.org>
 <4302D585.7030407@apache.org> <43039507.40805@ungoverned.org>
In-Reply-To: <43039507.40805@ungoverned.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm not a member, so my vote may not be important at all (and I'm not 
going to vote anyway ;)

Is there any chance that ASF will be providing another OSGi framework 
implementation, next to felix? Will the bundles then be shared across 
both projects, or are they 'felix' specific, in that they provide 
services specific to felix and are likely not too interesting to other 
frameworks/applications/servers?

the distinction should be made based on that decision. So #1, #2 and #3 
are all valid.

#1 -> ASF is always going to support only one OSGi implementation
#2 -> ASF is probably going to support another OSGi implementation (in a 
Galaxy far, far away) OR the provided bundles are general purpose 
(commons-bundles?)
#3 -> ASF is probably going to support another OSGi implementation and 
the provided bundles are Felix specific.

Just my $.02

Martijn


Richard S. Hall wrote:

> 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.