You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aries.apache.org by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com> on 2010/09/01 15:58:12 UTC
Re: The name of the util module (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries
(Incubating) version 0.2-incubating release candidate 05)
Yes it is consistent with the pattern but it is not obvious to me at
the first glance :-( It is good at least now I understand why there
is the difference!
I agree push it down a directory level is more consistent with what we
have in trunk.
Thanks
Lin
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> It's consistent with the pattern: modules that build bundles have an
> artifactId of the bundle symbolic name; and it's consistent with the
> pattern that those modules have simple names (e.g. util,
> blueprint-api, jpa-container). I think the oddness is that it's the
> exception to the rule: releasable modules (i.e. first level down from
> the aries/trunk) have a simple name.
>
> We could push it down a directory level so util -> util/util-for-real
> then we could have 'util-0.x-incubating' and a bundle called
> org.apache.aries.util-0.x-incubating in that. In fact util
> could/should be split into API/implementation bundles which would
> definitely warrant moving it down a level in the directory structure.
Re: The name of the util module (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) version 0.2-incubating release candidate 05)
Posted by Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org>.
I agree
Alasdair
On 1 Sep 2010, at 15:17, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO we should only push it down a level if in fact we split it into multiple bundles.
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 9/1/10 9:58 AM, Lin Sun wrote:
>> Yes it is consistent with the pattern but it is not obvious to me at
>> the first glance :-( It is good at least now I understand why there
>> is the difference!
>>
>> I agree push it down a directory level is more consistent with what we
>> have in trunk.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Lin
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Jeremy Hughes<hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> It's consistent with the pattern: modules that build bundles have an
>>> artifactId of the bundle symbolic name; and it's consistent with the
>>> pattern that those modules have simple names (e.g. util,
>>> blueprint-api, jpa-container). I think the oddness is that it's the
>>> exception to the rule: releasable modules (i.e. first level down from
>>> the aries/trunk) have a simple name.
>>>
>>> We could push it down a directory level so util -> util/util-for-real
>>> then we could have 'util-0.x-incubating' and a bundle called
>>> org.apache.aries.util-0.x-incubating in that. In fact util
>>> could/should be split into API/implementation bundles which would
>>> definitely warrant moving it down a level in the directory structure.
>>
>
>
> --
> Joe
Re: The name of the util module (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating)
version 0.2-incubating release candidate 05)
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
IMO we should only push it down a level if in fact we split it into
multiple bundles.
Joe
On 9/1/10 9:58 AM, Lin Sun wrote:
> Yes it is consistent with the pattern but it is not obvious to me at
> the first glance :-( It is good at least now I understand why there
> is the difference!
>
> I agree push it down a directory level is more consistent with what we
> have in trunk.
>
> Thanks
>
> Lin
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Jeremy Hughes<hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> It's consistent with the pattern: modules that build bundles have an
>> artifactId of the bundle symbolic name; and it's consistent with the
>> pattern that those modules have simple names (e.g. util,
>> blueprint-api, jpa-container). I think the oddness is that it's the
>> exception to the rule: releasable modules (i.e. first level down from
>> the aries/trunk) have a simple name.
>>
>> We could push it down a directory level so util -> util/util-for-real
>> then we could have 'util-0.x-incubating' and a bundle called
>> org.apache.aries.util-0.x-incubating in that. In fact util
>> could/should be split into API/implementation bundles which would
>> definitely warrant moving it down a level in the directory structure.
>
--
Joe