felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stuart McCulloch <mccu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:48:19 GMT
On 28 Feb 2013, at 16:30, Sahoo wrote:

> Again any change that causes pain to our users should be avoided. We don't want any negative
publicity about our stuff no matter how trivial they are. Imagine someone doing a google search
and finding two different plugin coordinates. It does not help a new comer and that's where
we have been struggling as a community.

Except that having OSGi packaging supported in Maven out-of-the-box could be worth any short-term
confusion, especially if we use a Maven relocation reference to redirect people to the migrated
plugin. In such cases new users would just change their project packaging from jar->bundle
to get OSGi support and not need anything else unless they needed to override the defaults.
Existing users could still continue to use current plugin releases, this is just looking at
future options - and if we did decide to contribute the plugin to Maven then they'd just need
to remove/change the groupId when changing the version. Not trivial, although the pom.xml
relocation option could help ease the pain, but also not as ground-shaking as requiring users
to completely rewrite their configuration.

If we do decide to keep the status quo then at least I have a thread to point the Maven folks
to next time they remind me to update the name...

> Thanks,
> Sahoo
> On Thursday 28 February 2013 07:48 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> I am fine with this option as well.
>> -> richard
>> On 2/28/13 08:35 , Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>>> During the "[DISCUSS] rename maven-bundle-plugin to bnd-maven-plugin" thread
Marcel and Guillaume came up with counter-suggestions involving contributing the maven-bundle-plugin
to Apache Maven.
>>> This idea has certain advantages - the plugin name would not be an issue (assuming
the Maven team were ok with 'bundle'==OSGi, as there are other interpretations of 'bundle'
such as resource bundles) and there's then a chance we could get the 'bundle' packaging type
recognized by default by Maven (though this wouldn't necessarily be a done deal). It would
also mean that people wouldn't need to specify a groupId when adding the plugin to their pom.xml
and you could use the short form of the plugin name from the command-line.
>>> The disadvantages are this would still involve a change of plugin coordinates
(org.apache.felix -> org.apache.maven.plugins) and any changes or improvements would have
to go through the Apache Maven project.
>>> There's also a question of whether the Apache Maven team would accept the contribution...
>>> WDYT?
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers, Stuart
>>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 13:03, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 13:43 , Stuart McCulloch <mcculls@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:05, fbalicchia wrote:
>>>>>> I think it is the best choice to follow the naming convention.
>>>>>> What I do not understand is why plugins can't be hosted by Apache
>>>>> The Apache Maven team prefer to keep the maven-NNN-plugin naming for
plugins developed and maintained by them (ie. those with groupId org.apache.maven.plugins)
whereas Maven plugins developed by other Apache (or non-Apache) projects are encouraged to
use NNN-maven-plugin naming. The idea is to help avoid confusion about which plugins are directly
supported by Apache Maven team and which are supported elsewhere:
>>>>>    http://www.mail-archive.com/users@maven.apache.org/msg128850.html
>>>>> While renaming the plugin would be a courtesy to the Apache Maven team,
it is not mandatory if it would cause problems for downstream users - hence this discussion
>>>> I would say, our users come first. Renaming the plugin causes them problems
for no reason (to them) so let's not do that.
>>>> Instead, we could also solve this by donating the plugin to the Apache Maven
>>>> Greetings, Marcel

View raw message