IMHO, Synapse folks can keep the physical names of MVN artifacts as it is. Physical names are opaque and wouldn't reflect much information w.r.t to OSGi standards.
Even the bundle-symbolicName can be anything and doesn't need to follow strict patterns. Normally when we create a bundle, for ex: consider the following example,
if the package structure of a project
We normally select the bundle-symbolicName as "org.foo.bar". As this could be considered as the parent of all other packages. Hence, when a user/developer looking the meta-date of the bundle, one be able to get a good understanding of the packaging structure.
In order to make the life easy for user/developer who use this bundles, the physical name of the bundle also named with the bundle-symbolicName. This is just a convenience factor for users/developers.
If someone adheres to prior way of naming bundles, it's very convenient to distinguish bundles. Ex: org.foo.bar Vs org.foo.bar.ui.
In-order to achieve this we will need to change the names of the artifacts
to the following format.
synapse-core-SNAPSHOT.jar ==> org.apache.synapse.core-SNAPSHOT.jar
and so on.... WDYT?
Awwww.. I personally don't like the above file names at all.. if OSGi
cannot understand them, they should fix it.. can we raise a JIRA
Any OSGi implementation can understand the previous names. I believe Ruwan is trying to make the names more self informative and descriptive.
Sometime back we did a lot to be Maven 2 compatible across
many projects.. I don't want to change everything now just so that OSGi
However, if you can generate a build target that generates these OSGi
bundles on some profile, as a copy of the existing artifacts - and we
upload them to maven 2 etc, - I am totally fine with that.. is that
+1. Since Synapse is quite famous around the community and it's not IMHO time to change the names of the main artifacts. As Asankha has said, it's worth to build the OSGi bundles separately using MVN semantics and used by OSGi community.