You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Stuart McCulloch <mc...@gmail.com> on 2013/02/28 14:35:23 UTC
[DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
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 <mc...@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 thread.
>
> 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 project.
>
> Greetings, Marcel
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <mc...@gmail.com>.
On 28 Feb 2013, at 18:18, Ferry Huberts wrote:
> On 28/02/13 19:08, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 17:55, Ferry Huberts wrote:
>>> On 28/02/13 18:29, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>>>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 17:04, Sahoo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday 28 February 2013 10:18 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>>>>>> Except that having OSGi packaging supported in Maven
>>>>>> out-of-the-box could be worth any short-term confusion,
>>>>> I don't understand this limitation. Why is it that an
>>>>> extension that supports bundle project type be generated from
>>>>> Maven project for maven to know about the extension by default?
>>>>> Surely it's a matter of them referencing our extension in some
>>>>> classpath configuration somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> It's up to the Maven team to decide on their default packaging
>>>> types. While there's no technical reason they couldn't refer to
>>>> extensions not under their control I'm not sure it will happen
>>>> any time soon. I should point out that contributing the plugin
>>>> doesn't mean it would automatically get added as a default
>>>> packaging type, but it would improve the odds - and development
>>>> of the plugin might benefit from being more aligned with the
>>>> Maven team.
>>>
>>> How would it improve the odds? You'd just shift the dependency on
>>> external code from the plugin to bnd. And I seriously doubt that
>>> Peter would be willing to donate bnd to the Maven team.
>>
>> I'm not stopping anyone from asking the Maven team to add 'bundle' as
>> a default packaging type, but I also doubt they would add a plugin
>> that they neither develop or maintain.
>>
>> Having a dependency from a core plugin to an external
>> (Apache-licensed) library is likely to be less of an issue,
>> especially since Maven itself relies on various external libraries.
>
> To clarify, I was just being curious, no intention of being critical (since I'm actually in favor of what you propose)
No worries, and I don't want to curtail any further discussion - I think I'll just go ahead and plan the next (overdue) release of the plugin keeping the existing name, after that we can revisit these ideas
>> That said it sounds like people have strong opinions about any change
>> of plugin coordinates, so I'm just going to leave it for now.
>
>>>>
>>>> PS. if anyone would like to help triage the maven-bundle-plugin
>>>> issues on JIRA and either propose patches or review/test
>>>> existing patches, let me know.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Sahoo
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- Ferry Huberts
>>
>
> --
> Ferry Huberts
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Ferry Huberts <ma...@hupie.com>.
On 28/02/13 19:08, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2013, at 17:55, Ferry Huberts wrote:
>> On 28/02/13 18:29, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 17:04, Sahoo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday 28 February 2013 10:18 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>>>>> Except that having OSGi packaging supported in Maven
>>>>> out-of-the-box could be worth any short-term confusion,
>>>> I don't understand this limitation. Why is it that an
>>>> extension that supports bundle project type be generated from
>>>> Maven project for maven to know about the extension by default?
>>>> Surely it's a matter of them referencing our extension in some
>>>> classpath configuration somewhere.
>>>
>>> It's up to the Maven team to decide on their default packaging
>>> types. While there's no technical reason they couldn't refer to
>>> extensions not under their control I'm not sure it will happen
>>> any time soon. I should point out that contributing the plugin
>>> doesn't mean it would automatically get added as a default
>>> packaging type, but it would improve the odds - and development
>>> of the plugin might benefit from being more aligned with the
>>> Maven team.
>>
>> How would it improve the odds? You'd just shift the dependency on
>> external code from the plugin to bnd. And I seriously doubt that
>> Peter would be willing to donate bnd to the Maven team.
>
> I'm not stopping anyone from asking the Maven team to add 'bundle' as
> a default packaging type, but I also doubt they would add a plugin
> that they neither develop or maintain.
>
> Having a dependency from a core plugin to an external
> (Apache-licensed) library is likely to be less of an issue,
> especially since Maven itself relies on various external libraries.
To clarify, I was just being curious, no intention of being critical
(since I'm actually in favor of what you propose)
>
> That said it sounds like people have strong opinions about any change
> of plugin coordinates, so I'm just going to leave it for now.
>
>>>
>>> PS. if anyone would like to help triage the maven-bundle-plugin
>>> issues on JIRA and either propose patches or review/test
>>> existing patches, let me know.
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Sahoo
>>>
>>
>> -- Ferry Huberts
>
--
Ferry Huberts
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <mc...@gmail.com>.
On 28 Feb 2013, at 17:55, Ferry Huberts wrote:
> On 28/02/13 18:29, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 17:04, Sahoo wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 28 February 2013 10:18 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>>>> Except that having OSGi packaging supported in Maven
>>>> out-of-the-box could be worth any short-term confusion,
>>> I don't understand this limitation. Why is it that an extension
>>> that supports bundle project type be generated from Maven project
>>> for maven to know about the extension by default? Surely it's a
>>> matter of them referencing our extension in some classpath
>>> configuration somewhere.
>>
>> It's up to the Maven team to decide on their default packaging types.
>> While there's no technical reason they couldn't refer to extensions
>> not under their control I'm not sure it will happen any time soon. I
>> should point out that contributing the plugin doesn't mean it would
>> automatically get added as a default packaging type, but it would
>> improve the odds - and development of the plugin might benefit from
>> being more aligned with the Maven team.
>
> How would it improve the odds?
> You'd just shift the dependency on external code from the plugin to bnd.
> And I seriously doubt that Peter would be willing to donate bnd to the Maven team.
I'm not stopping anyone from asking the Maven team to add 'bundle' as a default packaging type, but I also doubt they would add a plugin that they neither develop or maintain.
Having a dependency from a core plugin to an external (Apache-licensed) library is likely to be less of an issue, especially since Maven itself relies on various external libraries.
That said it sounds like people have strong opinions about any change of plugin coordinates, so I'm just going to leave it for now.
>>
>> PS. if anyone would like to help triage the maven-bundle-plugin
>> issues on JIRA and either propose patches or review/test existing
>> patches, let me know.
>>
>>> Thanks, Sahoo
>>
>
> --
> Ferry Huberts
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Ferry Huberts <ma...@hupie.com>.
On 28/02/13 18:29, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2013, at 17:04, Sahoo wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 28 February 2013 10:18 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>>> Except that having OSGi packaging supported in Maven
>>> out-of-the-box could be worth any short-term confusion,
>> I don't understand this limitation. Why is it that an extension
>> that supports bundle project type be generated from Maven project
>> for maven to know about the extension by default? Surely it's a
>> matter of them referencing our extension in some classpath
>> configuration somewhere.
>
> It's up to the Maven team to decide on their default packaging types.
> While there's no technical reason they couldn't refer to extensions
> not under their control I'm not sure it will happen any time soon. I
> should point out that contributing the plugin doesn't mean it would
> automatically get added as a default packaging type, but it would
> improve the odds - and development of the plugin might benefit from
> being more aligned with the Maven team.
How would it improve the odds?
You'd just shift the dependency on external code from the plugin to bnd.
And I seriously doubt that Peter would be willing to donate bnd to the
Maven team.
>
> PS. if anyone would like to help triage the maven-bundle-plugin
> issues on JIRA and either propose patches or review/test existing
> patches, let me know.
>
>> Thanks, Sahoo
>
--
Ferry Huberts
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <mc...@gmail.com>.
On 28 Feb 2013, at 17:04, Sahoo wrote:
> On Thursday 28 February 2013 10:18 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>> Except that having OSGi packaging supported in Maven out-of-the-box could be worth any short-term confusion,
> I don't understand this limitation. Why is it that an extension that supports bundle project type be generated from Maven project for maven to know about the extension by default? Surely it's a matter of them referencing our extension in some classpath configuration somewhere.
It's up to the Maven team to decide on their default packaging types. While there's no technical reason they couldn't refer to extensions not under their control I'm not sure it will happen any time soon. I should point out that contributing the plugin doesn't mean it would automatically get added as a default packaging type, but it would improve the odds - and development of the plugin might benefit from being more aligned with the Maven team.
PS. if anyone would like to help triage the maven-bundle-plugin issues on JIRA and either propose patches or review/test existing patches, let me know.
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Sahoo <sa...@oracle.com>.
On Thursday 28 February 2013 10:18 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> Except that having OSGi packaging supported in Maven out-of-the-box could be worth any short-term confusion,
I don't understand this limitation. Why is it that an extension that
supports bundle project type be generated from Maven project for maven
to know about the extension by default? Surely it's a matter of them
referencing our extension in some classpath configuration somewhere.
Thanks,
Sahoo
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <mc...@gmail.com>.
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.
<devils-advocate>
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.
</devils-advocate>
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 <mc...@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 thread.
>>>> 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 project.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings, Marcel
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Sahoo <sa...@oracle.com>.
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.
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 <mc...@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 thread.
>>> 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 project.
>>>
>>> Greetings, Marcel
>
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
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 <mc...@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 thread.
>> 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 project.
>>
>> Greetings, Marcel
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <mc...@gmail.com>.
On 28 Feb 2013, at 13:40, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I find this an intriguing idea and would really position creating OSGi bundles as a first-class job of build Java modules.
>
> Stuart, I assume you are a maven committer, so you continuing to maintain the plugin would be possible ? It would be a shame if we contribute the plugin to maven and it would then be orphaned...
Actually I've never been asked to become a Maven committer :) but part of the contribution process usually involves requesting committership for people involved in maintaining the plugin - as you say we don't want to end up orphaning the plugin.
It's important that people consider carefully the implications of changing the owning project - on the one hand there are opportunities for making the plugin work better with Maven out-of-the-box, but on the other hand any Felix developers that wanted to hack on the plugin in the future (but weren't in the list of current maintainers) would then need to send patches via the Maven team, at least until they were able to gain committership there. Then again there may be existing Maven developers that are willing to help improve the plugin.
Of course the easiest path would be to continue with the status quo, but I think it's healthy to have this discussion and see what our users think (there's a separate discussion thread on users@felix to limit cross-posting).
> Regards
> Felix
>
> Am 28.02.2013 um 14:35 schrieb Stuart McCulloch:
>
>> 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 <mc...@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 thread.
>>>
>>> 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 project.
>>>
>>> Greetings, Marcel
>
>
> --
> Felix Meschberger | Principal Scientist | Adobe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
I find this an intriguing idea and would really position creating OSGi bundles as a first-class job of build Java modules.
Stuart, I assume you are a maven committer, so you continuing to maintain the plugin would be possible ? It would be a shame if we contribute the plugin 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" 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 <mc...@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 thread.
>>
>> 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 project.
>>
>> Greetings, Marcel
--
Felix Meschberger | Principal Scientist | Adobe
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Filippo Balicchia <fb...@gmail.com>.
IMHO I think that is good thing
Regards
--Filippo
2013/2/28 Stuart McCulloch <mc...@gmail.com>
> 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 <mc...@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 thread.
> >
> > 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 project.
> >
> > Greetings, Marcel
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com>.
Personally, I don't think it does - but for those still new to
OSGi/modularity it -may- be.
It doesn't really matter if it moves or not really, other than the
potential added benefit of not having to mention the groupId, and maybe
getting the packaging recognized by default ( which afaik would require
a maven release, and for users to run specifically with that new release
in order to build ).
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> It's hard to believe this misperception still exists after all these
> years...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 3/1/13 14:39 , Mark Derricutt wrote:
> Also, since the maven-bundle-plugin is technically "OSGi" not "felix
> only" it makes sense moving it away from felix core ( but then, that
> kinda goes for the other plugins as well ).
It's hard to believe this misperception still exists after all these
years...
I don't think any of the Felix subprojects are "Felix only"...not even
sure what that means... If we are talking about "Felix framework only",
then only the framework security provider is tied to the Felix
framework, for obvious reasons...
-> richard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] contribute maven-bundle-plugin to Apache Maven
Posted by Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com>.
On the surface this sounds like a good idea, I was just wondering about
the rest of the felix related maven plugins, such as SCR etc.
Currently it's very handy to just hit that main felix page and see the
list of felix updates, and felix maven updates, tho I suppose is
maven-bundle-plugin moves to Maven theres nothing stopping it being
mentioned there still is there.
Also, since the maven-bundle-plugin is technically "OSGi" not "felix
only" it makes sense moving it away from felix core ( but then, that
kinda goes for the other plugins as well ).
+1
Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org