Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of fmeschbe@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.23 as permitted sender)
From: Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>
To: "dev@felix.apache.org" <dev@felix.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:40:49 +0000
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Thread-Index: Ac4VuTg7oPgVUKs/SpOfbvGWGijLFQ==
Message-ID: <FF062D36-D6EF-4445-A2EB-90A6912F9438@adobe.com>
References: <9481FECB-DE37-4AB7-9532-3B2FB561186C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9481FECB-DE37-4AB7-9532-3B2FB561186C@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi,

I find this an intriguing idea and would really position creating OSGi bund=
les as a first-class job of build Java modules.

Stuart, I assume you are a maven committer, so you continuing to maintain t=
he plugin would be possible ? It would be a shame if we contribute the plug=
in to maven and it would then be orphaned...

Regards
Felix

Am 28.02.2013 um 14:35 schrieb Stuart McCulloch:

> During the "[DISCUSS] rename maven-bundle-plugin to bnd-maven-plugin" thr=
ead Marcel and Guillaume came up with counter-suggestions involving contrib=
uting the maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven.
>=20
> This idea has certain advantages - the plugin name would not be an issue =
(assuming the Maven team were ok with 'bundle'=3D=3DOSGi, as there are othe=
r interpretations of 'bundle' such as resource bundles) and there's then a =
chance we could get the 'bundle' packaging type recognized by default by Ma=
ven (though this wouldn't necessarily be a done deal). It would also mean t=
hat people wouldn't need to specify a groupId when adding the plugin to the=
ir pom.xml and you could use the short form of the plugin name from the com=
mand-line.
>=20
> The disadvantages are this would still involve a change of plugin coordin=
ates (org.apache.felix -> org.apache.maven.plugins) and any changes or impr=
ovements would have to go through the Apache Maven project.
>=20
> There's also a question of whether the Apache Maven team would accept the=
 contribution...
>=20
> WDYT?
>=20
> --
> Cheers, Stuart
>=20
> On 28 Feb 2013, at 13:03, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>=20
>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 13:43 , Stuart McCulloch <mcculls@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:05, fbalicchia wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> 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
>>>=20
>>> The Apache Maven team prefer to keep the maven-NNN-plugin naming for pl=
ugins developed and maintained by them (ie. those with groupId org.apache.m=
aven.plugins) whereas Maven plugins developed by other Apache (or non-Apach=
e) projects are encouraged to use NNN-maven-plugin naming. The idea is to h=
elp avoid confusion about which plugins are directly supported by Apache Ma=
ven team and which are supported elsewhere:
>>>=20
>>> 	http://www.mail-archive.com/users@maven.apache.org/msg128850.html
>>>=20
>>> 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 - henc=
e this discussion thread.
>>=20
>> I would say, our users come first. Renaming the plugin causes them probl=
ems for no reason (to them) so let's not do that.
>>=20
>> Instead, we could also solve this by donating the plugin to the Apache M=
aven project.
>>=20
>> Greetings, Marcel


--
Felix Meschberger | Principal Scientist | Adobe