You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@synapse.apache.org by Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com> on 2008/08/18 18:48:50 UTC
Renaming Synapse artifact jar files
Hi Folks,
I found that, to be a proper OSGi bundle the bundle symbolic name and the
physical name of the artifact has to be the same. Also OSGi bundle naming
scheme follow the groupid followed by a dot and the name of the jar file in
general and I would like to propose for us to stick to that format in the
synapse OSGi bundles.
In-order to achieve this we will need to change the names of the artifacts
to the following format.
synapse-transport-SNAPSHOT.jar ==>
org.apache.synapse.transports-SNAPSHOT.jar
synapse-core-SNAPSHOT.jar ==> org.apache.synapse.core-SNAPSHOT.jar
and so on.... WDYT?
Please note that the release artifact is not going to be affected by this
naming convention and will remain to be synapse-bin-SNAPSHOT.zip
Thanks,
Ruwan
--
Ruwan Linton
http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
Re: Renaming Synapse artifact jar files
Posted by Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>.
After considering all the comments I think we better change the bundle
symbolic name to be the synapse-transports followed by the version.
Thanks for all the comments...
Ruwan
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Afkham Azeez <af...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think having bundle names such as
> org.apache.synapse.transport_SNAPSHOT.jar is just a convention, mainly
> adopted by Eclipse Equinox. Some projects like WSO2 Carbon (
> http://wso2.org/projects/carbon) have adopted this convention to the
> extent that even the Maven2 modules/folders have this convention (
> https://wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon), but there is no hard and fast
> rule to adopt it.
>
> Thanks
> Azeez
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Saminda Abeyruwan <sa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Asankha/Saminda,
>>>
>>> I just wanted the OSGi bundles to be in its standard way and it is
>>> possible to understand the artifact names that are already there, but if we
>>> go with that structure then the bundle names are going to be
>>> synapse-core_SNAPSHOT.jar and so on which is not the standard of OSGi.
>>>
>>
>> There is no accepted norm to publish bundles as org.foo.bar_<versio>.jar.
>> People just do it for convenience and nothing more. Using bundle names as
>> prior is not a standard of OSGi, merely a convenience way of describing
>> bundle information.
>>
>> Saminda
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will try to create two artifacts one as the OSGi bundle and the other
>>> as a pure jar file.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ruwan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Saminda Abeyruwan <sa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> +- org
>>>> +- foo
>>>> +- bar
>>>> +- internal
>>>> +- Activator.jar
>>>> +- Foo.jar
>>>> ..
>>>> +- car
>>>> +- Foo1.java
>>>>
>>>> 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-transport-SNAPSHOT.jar ==>
>>>>> org.apache.synapse.transports-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>>>> 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 against it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>> understands them..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 possible?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +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.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> Saminda
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ruwan Linton
>>> http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
>>> http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Afkham Azeez
>
> http://afkham.org
> http://www.wso2.org
> GPG Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9 B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0760
>
--
Ruwan Linton
http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
Re: Renaming Synapse artifact jar files
Posted by Afkham Azeez <af...@gmail.com>.
I think having bundle names such as
org.apache.synapse.transport_SNAPSHOT.jar is just a convention, mainly
adopted by Eclipse Equinox. Some projects like WSO2 Carbon (
http://wso2.org/projects/carbon) have adopted this convention to the extent
that even the Maven2 modules/folders have this convention (
https://wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon), but there is no hard and fast
rule to adopt it.
Thanks
Azeez
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Saminda Abeyruwan <sa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Asankha/Saminda,
>>
>> I just wanted the OSGi bundles to be in its standard way and it is
>> possible to understand the artifact names that are already there, but if we
>> go with that structure then the bundle names are going to be
>> synapse-core_SNAPSHOT.jar and so on which is not the standard of OSGi.
>>
>
> There is no accepted norm to publish bundles as org.foo.bar_<versio>.jar.
> People just do it for convenience and nothing more. Using bundle names as
> prior is not a standard of OSGi, merely a convenience way of describing
> bundle information.
>
> Saminda
>
>>
>>
>> I will try to create two artifacts one as the OSGi bundle and the other as
>> a pure jar file.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ruwan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Saminda Abeyruwan <sa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> 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
>>> +- org
>>> +- foo
>>> +- bar
>>> +- internal
>>> +- Activator.jar
>>> +- Foo.jar
>>> ..
>>> +- car
>>> +- Foo1.java
>>>
>>> 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-transport-SNAPSHOT.jar ==>
>>>> org.apache.synapse.transports-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>>> 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 against it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> understands them..
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 possible?
>>>>
>>>
>>> +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.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Saminda
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ruwan Linton
>> http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
>> http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
--
Thanks
Afkham Azeez
http://afkham.org
http://www.wso2.org
GPG Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9 B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0760
Re: Renaming Synapse artifact jar files
Posted by Saminda Abeyruwan <sa...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Asankha/Saminda,
>
> I just wanted the OSGi bundles to be in its standard way and it is possible
> to understand the artifact names that are already there, but if we go with
> that structure then the bundle names are going to be
> synapse-core_SNAPSHOT.jar and so on which is not the standard of OSGi.
>
There is no accepted norm to publish bundles as org.foo.bar_<versio>.jar.
People just do it for convenience and nothing more. Using bundle names as
prior is not a standard of OSGi, merely a convenience way of describing
bundle information.
Saminda
>
>
> I will try to create two artifacts one as the OSGi bundle and the other as
> a pure jar file.
>
> Thanks,
> Ruwan
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Saminda Abeyruwan <sa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> 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
>> +- org
>> +- foo
>> +- bar
>> +- internal
>> +- Activator.jar
>> +- Foo.jar
>> ..
>> +- car
>> +- Foo1.java
>>
>> 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-transport-SNAPSHOT.jar ==>
>>> org.apache.synapse.transports-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>> 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 against it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>> understands them..
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 possible?
>>>
>>
>> +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.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Saminda
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ruwan Linton
> http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
> http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
>
Re: Renaming Synapse artifact jar files
Posted by Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>.
Asankha/Saminda,
I just wanted the OSGi bundles to be in its standard way and it is possible
to understand the artifact names that are already there, but if we go with
that structure then the bundle names are going to be
synapse-core_SNAPSHOT.jar and so on which is not the standard of OSGi.
I will try to create two artifacts one as the OSGi bundle and the other as a
pure jar file.
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Saminda Abeyruwan <sa...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> 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
> +- org
> +- foo
> +- bar
> +- internal
> +- Activator.jar
> +- Foo.jar
> ..
> +- car
> +- Foo1.java
>
> 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-transport-SNAPSHOT.jar ==>
>> org.apache.synapse.transports-SNAPSHOT.jar
>> 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 against it?
>>
>>
>
> 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 understands them..
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> 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 possible?
>>
>
> +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.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Saminda
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ruwan Linton
http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
Re: Renaming Synapse artifact jar files
Posted by Saminda Abeyruwan <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi All,
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
+- org
+- foo
+- bar
+- internal
+- Activator.jar
+- Foo.jar
..
+- car
+- Foo1.java
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-transport-SNAPSHOT.jar ==>
> org.apache.synapse.transports-SNAPSHOT.jar
> 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 against it?
>
>
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 understands them..
>
>
> 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 possible?
>
+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.
Thank you!
Saminda
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Renaming Synapse artifact jar files
Posted by "Asankha C. Perera" <as...@wso2.com>.
Ruwan
> In-order to achieve this we will need to change the names of the artifacts
> to the following format.
>
> synapse-transport-SNAPSHOT.jar ==>
> org.apache.synapse.transports-SNAPSHOT.jar
> 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 against
it? 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
understands them..
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
possible?
asankha
--
Asankha C. Perera
WSO2 - http://wso2.org
http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
Re: Renaming Synapse artifact jar files
Posted by "Asankha C. Perera" <as...@wso2.com>.
Ruwan
> In-order to achieve this we will need to change the names of the artifacts
> to the following format.
>
> synapse-transport-SNAPSHOT.jar ==>
> org.apache.synapse.transports-SNAPSHOT.jar
> 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 against
it? 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
understands them..
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
possible?
asankha
--
Asankha C. Perera
WSO2 - http://wso2.org
http://esbmagic.blogspot.com