jar naming convention

[Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>]

Hi, Felix list,

I'd like to expand our naming convention discussion to the "next level 
down," namely to bundle jars and so I was wondering about a naming 
convention for bundles at Apache.  Apache jars have typically had a name 
like lucene-1.4.3.jar or commons-logging-1.0.4.jar.  And Eclipse names 
stuff in reverse FQCN, such as org.eclipse.core.runtime_3.1.0.jar, which 
I have personally gotten used to since it maps well to my projects and 
lines up nicely in folder listings.  I was wondering what pros and cons 
people had for the various conventions and if it was worth trying to 
figure something out here.  Just wanted to start a dialog.

Enrique

Re: jar naming convention

[Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>]

Enrique Rodriguez wrote:

> Hi, Felix list,
>
> I'd like to expand our naming convention discussion to the "next level 
> down," namely to bundle jars and so I was wondering about a naming 
> convention for bundles at Apache.  Apache jars have typically had a 
> name like lucene-1.4.3.jar or commons-logging-1.0.4.jar.  And Eclipse 
> names stuff in reverse FQCN, such as 
> org.eclipse.core.runtime_3.1.0.jar, which I have personally gotten 
> used to since it maps well to my projects and lines up nicely in 
> folder listings.  I was wondering what pros and cons people had for 
> the various conventions and if it was worth trying to figure something 
> out here.  Just wanted to start a dialog.

Typical naming of Apache jars assume that the context (Apache) is known. 
This assumption breaks down with jar repositories and bundle 
repositorires, where the Eclipse naming convention makes much more 
sense, as the names are granted to be unique and the source of the jar 
(bundle) is obvious. IMO we should go for the Eclipse way in Felix.

/Daniel

Re: jar naming convention

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Well, for the framework, I would prefer felix.jar for simplicity. I can 
understand the desire to have the version in there and felix-1.0.0.jar 
isn't so bad. I am not convinced that 
org.apache.felix.framework-1.0.0.jar is so great. :-)

I guess I personify things too much...to me, felix.jar seems much more 
personable.

-> richard

Enrique Rodriguez wrote:

> Hi, Felix list,
>
> I'd like to expand our naming convention discussion to the "next level 
> down," namely to bundle jars and so I was wondering about a naming 
> convention for bundles at Apache.  Apache jars have typically had a 
> name like lucene-1.4.3.jar or commons-logging-1.0.4.jar.  And Eclipse 
> names stuff in reverse FQCN, such as 
> org.eclipse.core.runtime_3.1.0.jar, which I have personally gotten 
> used to since it maps well to my projects and lines up nicely in 
> folder listings.  I was wondering what pros and cons people had for 
> the various conventions and if it was worth trying to figure something 
> out here.  Just wanted to start a dialog.
>
> Enrique
>
>
>