You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org> on 2005/08/17 21:50:31 UTC
Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
I am not against renaming the packages, but it would be nice if we could
make this decision once and stick to it. We already discussed this and
agreed on the current package naming scheme. I waited to commit source
so we could start fresh...so much for that. :-)
We have two options that are only slightly different.
Option #1:
org.apache.osgi.framework
org.apache.osgi.bundle
org.apache.osgi.service
...
Option #2:
org.apache.felix
org.apache.osgi.bundle
org.apache.osgi.service
The benefit of the #1 is a single package hierarchy that relates
everything in a clear and explicit way. The benefits of #2 is shorter
package names for the framework and some branding.
Please review the mailing list archive for other arguments.
Let's take a final vote so we can wrap this up and move on to more
important things.
-> richard
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 17 August 2005 02:36, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bennett, Timothy (JIS - Applications) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Our previous package naming conventions still hold despite the
>>>> renaming
>>>> of the project, correct?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. I had already renamed packages and there were no packages named
>>> oscar, so the name change has not affected package naming at all.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is somewhat not inline with the standard procedures at Apache.
>> Although there are both valid exceptions (standards) and exceptions
>> for various less obvious reasons (mistakes, over looked, changed
>> homes, etc).
>>
>> I think the Incubator PMC could give some guidance whether
>> org.apache.osgi or org.apache.felix can/should/must be used.
>>
>> Personally, I would favour a solution where the Felix implementation
>> sits in org.apache.felix and bundles are placed in org.apache.osgi
>>
>>
>
> +1, for the reasons mentioned here and the follow-ups: ASF standard
> policy and branding. Package names should reflect the projet they
> orginate from and not the specification they implement, e.g. Tomcat
> isn't in org.apache.servlets and Xerces isn't in org.apache.jaxp.
>
> Furthermore, I think our goal and the potential of this projet is to
> become a top-level project that hosts both the framework and bundle
> subprojects. That would be felix.apache.org and not osgi.apache.org.
>
> Sylvain
>
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Thursday 18 August 2005 06:04, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I think Richard just want the bije shedding to stop, and so do I.
> And Option #3:
>
> org.apache.felix.framework
> org.apache.felix.bundle
> org.apache.felix.service
> org.apache.felix.other_subproject
Let's respect the argument for long-term organizational viability within the
ASF, and Richard's insight that Felix might out live and be much larger than
OSGi.
> This is the standard policy throughout the ASF with very few exceptions,
> the biggest one being AFAICS... ahem... the Directory project which uses
> a lot of org.apache.* packages: asn1, ldap, authx, naming, etc.
I guess this disqualifies all Apache Directory peeps in here from a vote ;o)
Ralph expressed it well;
<quote>
My vote doesn't count but if I saw source code named org.apache.osgi I'd
start looking for it at http://osgi.apache.org. If I couldn't find it
I'd then go into subversion looking at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/osgi. Then I'd give up and go home.
</quote>
Noel, our respected Incubator Chair, asked some well-balanced questions,
trying to determine the "intent" around Option 2, to form himself an opinion.
Sylvain foresees that a lot of OSGi stuff in other projects will be in each
project, and not necessarily aggregated.
We have now united around Felix, so let's use the name in the project,
including the package names. I am sure that the Incubator will be happy, and
future grief will be lesser.
Option #3, Big +1.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> I'm not a member, so my vote may not be important at all (and I'm not
> going to vote anyway ;)
>
> Is there any chance that ASF will be providing another OSGi framework
> implementation, next to felix? Will the bundles then be shared across
> both projects, or are they 'felix' specific, in that they provide
> services specific to felix and are likely not too interesting to other
> frameworks/applications/servers?
It doesn't really matter if there is more than one OSGi project. Even
if bundles work in both projects I still want to know which one hosts
them. I can only get that through jar or package names. As far as the
reasoning behind picking 1, 2, or 3 below, I'm not very good at
predicting the future and that is essentially the criteria you are using.
Maybe I should request committership just so I can vote -1 on options 1
and 2. Sheesh.
Ralph
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@dashorst.dds.nl>.
I'm not a member, so my vote may not be important at all (and I'm not
going to vote anyway ;)
Is there any chance that ASF will be providing another OSGi framework
implementation, next to felix? Will the bundles then be shared across
both projects, or are they 'felix' specific, in that they provide
services specific to felix and are likely not too interesting to other
frameworks/applications/servers?
the distinction should be made based on that decision. So #1, #2 and #3
are all valid.
#1 -> ASF is always going to support only one OSGi implementation
#2 -> ASF is probably going to support another OSGi implementation (in a
Galaxy far, far away) OR the provided bundles are general purpose
(commons-bundles?)
#3 -> ASF is probably going to support another OSGi implementation and
the provided bundles are Felix specific.
Just my $.02
Martijn
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> I am not against renaming the packages, but it would be nice if we
> could make this decision once and stick to it. We already discussed
> this and agreed on the current package naming scheme. I waited to
> commit source so we could start fresh...so much for that. :-)
>
> We have two options that are only slightly different.
>
> Option #1:
>
> org.apache.osgi.framework
> org.apache.osgi.bundle
> org.apache.osgi.service
> ...
>
> Option #2:
>
> org.apache.felix
> org.apache.osgi.bundle
> org.apache.osgi.service
>
> The benefit of the #1 is a single package hierarchy that relates
> everything in a clear and explicit way. The benefits of #2 is shorter
> package names for the framework and some branding.
>
> Please review the mailing list archive for other arguments.
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Thursday 18 August 2005 21:15, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Let's just start focusing on the community and the technology so some
> fresh air can waft through this project as opposed to these bike
> shedding discussions.
Perhaps following "common practices" instead reduces "bike shedding".
<warning type="sarcasm" unless="too obvious" >
For instance, why use "org.apache.osgi" ?? Why not just
"org.apache.service.ColorProvider" or "org.apache.ShedPainter" ??
No conflict now, a lot shorter, to the point, and completely impossible to
trace back to the right home, when Apache is a 1000 projects big. Who looks
at source code anyway?
</warning>
Good Luck with your members@ effort.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Option #3:
>
> org.apache.felix.framework
> org.apache.felix.bundle
> org.apache.felix.service
> org.apache.felix.other_subproject
(non-binding) +1
--
Reinhard Pötz
___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> org.apache.felix.framework
> org.apache.felix.bundle
> org.apache.felix.service
> org.apache.felix.other_subproject
My non-binding +1
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> And Option #3:
>
> org.apache.felix.framework
> org.apache.felix.bundle
> org.apache.felix.service
> org.apache.felix.other_subproject
>
> This is the standard policy throughout the ASF with very few exceptions,
> the biggest one being AFAICS... ahem... the Directory project which uses
> a lot of org.apache.* packages: asn1, ldap, authx, naming, etc.
>
> If we want to avoid name clashes in applications using several Apache
> products and considering how fast the ASF is growing, projects should
> put all their classes in the org.apache.{project-name} package.
>
+1 for #3
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> Thanks for volunteering but let's do this right instead of turning
> felix into a project yoyo. If we do this let's do it once and for all
> with everyone in agreement. Let's not get too far ahead of our selves
> here. I'm not sure any changes need to happen immediately.
I am. The current naming is a problem. It is just doesn't follow
common sense.
> Let's just start focusing on the community and the technology so some
> fresh air can waft through this project as opposed to these bike
> shedding discussions. Let's put this on the back burner and look
> towards a larger ASF panel that has representatives from all PMCs to
> make the final call on a package naming standard *NOT* just a
> recommended convention people can decide to follow or ignore.
-1
>
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>>> Can you work with me to setup some panel of PMC members where we
>>>> can galvanize a policy? Some kind of java specific panel at the
>>>> ASF. Hopefully we can come up with something definative together
>>>> where all TLPs and their projects authoring java code can conform
>>>> to an official ASF standard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinking about starting such a discussion. Don't know whether
>>> members@ or community@ is more appropriate though.
>>
>>
>>
>> How about a new list. java@a.o for java related concerns at the
>> foundation and for establishing policies to deal with these kinds of
>> issues? We can take this conversation there to kick things off. WDYT?
>
>
>
> Well, if we need this list to be set up before discussing, I'm afraid
> we'll be old when the discussion actually starts ;-)
>
> More seriously, since this is about defining an ASF policy, let's
> start on members@ and see there if another location is more appropriate.
Fine by me. C'ya there.
Alex
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
> <snip/>
>
>>> Can you work with me to setup some panel of PMC members where we can
>>> galvanize a policy? Some kind of java specific panel at the ASF.
>>> Hopefully we can come up with something definative together where
>>> all TLPs and their projects authoring java code can conform to an
>>> official ASF standard.
>>
>>
>> I was thinking about starting such a discussion. Don't know whether
>> members@ or community@ is more appropriate though.
>
>
> How about a new list. java@a.o for java related concerns at the
> foundation and for establishing policies to deal with these kinds of
> issues? We can take this conversation there to kick things off. WDYT?
Well, if we need this list to be set up before discussing, I'm afraid
we'll be old when the discussion actually starts ;-)
More seriously, since this is about defining an ASF policy, let's start
on members@ and see there if another location is more appropriate.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
> <snip/>
>
>>> Can you work with me to setup some panel of PMC members where we can
>>> galvanize a policy? Some kind of java specific panel at the ASF.
>>> Hopefully we can come up with something definative together where all
>>> TLPs and their projects authoring java code can conform to an
>>> official ASF standard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I was thinking about starting such a discussion. Don't know whether
>> members@ or community@ is more appropriate though.
>
>
> How about a new list. java@a.o for java related concerns at the
> foundation and for establishing policies to deal with these kinds of
> issues? We can take this conversation there to kick things off. WDYT?
A previous idea for python@a.o didn't take off because it wasn't clear
which PMC would provide oversight for such a list.
Sort out/clarify that issue, and you might have more success.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
<snip/>
>> Can you work with me to setup some panel of PMC members where we can
>> galvanize a policy? Some kind of java specific panel at the ASF.
>> Hopefully we can come up with something definative together where all
>> TLPs and their projects authoring java code can conform to an
>> official ASF standard.
>
>
>
> I was thinking about starting such a discussion. Don't know whether
> members@ or community@ is more appropriate though.
How about a new list. java@a.o for java related concerns at the
foundation and for establishing policies to deal with these kinds of
issues? We can take this conversation there to kick things off. WDYT?
Alex
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>
> <snip/>
>
>>> Option #1:
>>>
>>> org.apache.osgi.framework
>>> org.apache.osgi.bundle
>>> org.apache.osgi.service
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Option #2:
>>>
>>> org.apache.felix
>>> org.apache.osgi.bundle
>>> org.apache.osgi.service
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And Option #3:
>>
>> org.apache.felix.framework
>> org.apache.felix.bundle
>> org.apache.felix.service
>> org.apache.felix.other_subproject
>>
>> This is the standard policy throughout the ASF with very few exceptions,
>
>
> This is not a correct statement. There is no definative policy with
> respect to package name enforcement at the ASF. Everyone is presuming
> this but this is a convention that a portion, a subset of the java
> projects at the ASF, have followed out of some consensus.
Right. I should have written "most common practice" rather than
"standard policy".
> Question is who is to decide this standard? Is this the right forum?
Certainly not, but that's an issue we have here.
> It may very well be the right forum due to the importance of this
> project with respect to cross project interop that an OSGi project at
> the ASF brings forth. However we will loose our focus here if we try
> to define ASF policies here.
> This is a very important project in the sense that it could unit
> several projects and lead to a means to combine the efforts of several
> ASF Java projects. So yes package naming is important. However not
> all projects are represented here.
>
>> the biggest one being AFAICS... ahem... the Directory project which
>> uses a lot of org.apache.* packages: asn1, ldap, authx, naming, etc.
>
>
> Yep this is true we do not follow this convention at Directory and
> don't feel that we should have to. Some of the reasons for our
> package naming decisions stem from the fact that we were fromed from
> several projects coming together like naming and the ldap server
> effort. Also we understand that some projects don't belong in
> directory even though they started there. Take the ASN.1 libraries
> which can be used by several protocols. Eventually we can see this
> library moving off to a commons or elsewhere.
What happens then if someone else needs ASN.1 too and for some reason
doesn't like what Directory provides? Will it be "org.apache.my_asn1"?
Managing commons is OT regarding this list, but an important subject
too. There is a Commons project and IMO writing commons should be done
in relation with its PMC, or be kept within project-specific pakages.
But that's really OT here.
> Regardless of the intent we have not had an issue with package name
> conflicts. There is no reason for us to get ahead of ourselves and
> impose restrictions if there are no problems. When we have a problem
> we can refactor the package names to find a solution. Time is better
> spent confronting the problems we do have in front of us. We have
> that agility and there is no reason to worry or excessivley plan
> ahead. It is highly unlikely that we're going to have a package name
> conflict with org.apache.osgi.
>
>> If we want to avoid name clashes in applications using several Apache
>> products and considering how fast the ASF is growing, projects should
>> put all their classes in the org.apache.{project-name} package.
>
>
> Good that you're thinking about this but really how many conflicts
> have you had to deal with till now.
Hmm... if OSGi becomes widely used throughout Apache, my impression is
that it may happen sooner than later because we will see a lot of
bundles appearing that people will be able to assemble on a single Felix
instance.
> Let's encounter the problem first before we devise a solution for it.
> Furthermore, this convention needs to be galvanized officially as a
> standard before it's mandated across java based effforts or upon
> unsuspecting incubator podlings. I have not seen the ASF make any
> formal statment regarding package naming schemes. Perhaps its time for
> one to be made to spare us the confusion.
Yup.
>> Packdage names should not be about the technology the classes they
>> contain rely on, nor the specification they implement, but about the
>> project and community that writes these classes and cares about them.
>> Using another policy is IMO an open door to name clashes and doesn't
>> follow the ASF principle that community is more important than the code.
>>
> You see I like this statement and it makes sense in encapsulating
> namespace branches based on the origins of packages. All I'm saying
> is we need a formal body to decide these matters at the ASF for java
> based projects. Although very appealing this does not account for
> every concern associated with package name selection. There might be
> some value in having package names express more than their origins.
> This is a classic problem where people have to decide how to branch a
> namespace and a formal body is required to decide this matter. The
> OID namespace for example is one that had similar issues.
>
>> And if doing the renaming is an issue now that the code is in SVN, I
>> volunteer for doing the change ;-)
>
>
> Thanks for volunteering but let's do this right instead of turning
> felix into a project yoyo. If we do this let's do it once and for all
> with everyone in agreement. Let's not get too far ahead of our selves
> here. I'm not sure any changes need to happen immediately.
Agree. I've not said I'll do it right now, but that I volunteer to spend
that time if needed.
> Let's just start focusing on the community and the technology so some
> fresh air can waft through this project as opposed to these bike
> shedding discussions. Let's put this on the back burner and look
> towards a larger ASF panel that has representatives from all PMCs to
> make the final call on a package naming standard *NOT* just a
> recommended convention people can decide to follow or ignore.
>
> Let's not tax this community with a greater ASF concern. Let's be
> proactive though. Can you work with me to setup some panel of PMC
> members where we can galvanize a policy? Some kind of java specific
> panel at the ASF. Hopefully we can come up with something definative
> together where all TLPs and their projects authoring java code can
> conform to an official ASF standard.
I was thinking about starting such a discussion. Don't know whether
members@ or community@ is more appropriate though.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
<snip/>
>> Option #1:
>>
>> org.apache.osgi.framework
>> org.apache.osgi.bundle
>> org.apache.osgi.service
>> ...
>>
>> Option #2:
>>
>> org.apache.felix
>> org.apache.osgi.bundle
>> org.apache.osgi.service
>
>
>
> And Option #3:
>
> org.apache.felix.framework
> org.apache.felix.bundle
> org.apache.felix.service
> org.apache.felix.other_subproject
>
> This is the standard policy throughout the ASF with very few exceptions,
This is not a correct statement. There is no definative policy with
respect to package name enforcement at the ASF. Everyone is presuming
this but this is a convention that a portion, a subset of the java
projects at the ASF, have followed out of some consensus.
Question is who is to decide this standard? Is this the right forum?
It may very well be the right forum due to the importance of this
project with respect to cross project interop that an OSGi project at
the ASF brings forth. However we will loose our focus here if we try to
define ASF policies here.
This is a very important project in the sense that it could unit several
projects and lead to a means to combine the efforts of several ASF Java
projects. So yes package naming is important. However not all projects
are represented here.
> the biggest one being AFAICS... ahem... the Directory project which
> uses a lot of org.apache.* packages: asn1, ldap, authx, naming, etc.
Yep this is true we do not follow this convention at Directory and don't
feel that we should have to. Some of the reasons for our package naming
decisions stem from the fact that we were fromed from several projects
coming together like naming and the ldap server effort. Also we
understand that some projects don't belong in directory even though they
started there. Take the ASN.1 libraries which can be used by several
protocols. Eventually we can see this library moving off to a commons
or elsewhere.
Regardless of the intent we have not had an issue with package name
conflicts. There is no reason for us to get ahead of ourselves and
impose restrictions if there are no problems. When we have a problem we
can refactor the package names to find a solution. Time is better spent
confronting the problems we do have in front of us. We have that
agility and there is no reason to worry or excessivley plan ahead. It
is highly unlikely that we're going to have a package name conflict with
org.apache.osgi.
> If we want to avoid name clashes in applications using several Apache
> products and considering how fast the ASF is growing, projects should
> put all their classes in the org.apache.{project-name} package.
>
Good that you're thinking about this but really how many conflicts have
you had to deal with till now. Let's encounter the problem first before
we devise a solution for it. Furthermore, this convention needs to be
galvanized officially as a standard before it's mandated across java
based effforts or upon unsuspecting incubator podlings. I have not seen
the ASF make any formal statment regarding package naming schemes.
Perhaps its time for one to be made to spare us the confusion.
> Packdage names should not be about the technology the classes they
> contain rely on, nor the specification they implement, but about the
> project and community that writes these classes and cares about them.
> Using another policy is IMO an open door to name clashes and doesn't
> follow the ASF principle that community is more important than the code.
>
You see I like this statement and it makes sense in encapsulating
namespace branches based on the origins of packages. All I'm saying is
we need a formal body to decide these matters at the ASF for java based
projects. Although very appealing this does not account for every
concern associated with package name selection. There might be some
value in having package names express more than their origins. This is
a classic problem where people have to decide how to branch a namespace
and a formal body is required to decide this matter. The OID namespace
for example is one that had similar issues.
> And if doing the renaming is an issue now that the code is in SVN, I
> volunteer for doing the change ;-)
Thanks for volunteering but let's do this right instead of turning felix
into a project yoyo. If we do this let's do it once and for all with
everyone in agreement. Let's not get too far ahead of our selves here.
I'm not sure any changes need to happen immediately.
Let's just start focusing on the community and the technology so some
fresh air can waft through this project as opposed to these bike
shedding discussions. Let's put this on the back burner and look
towards a larger ASF panel that has representatives from all PMCs to
make the final call on a package naming standard *NOT* just a
recommended convention people can decide to follow or ignore.
Let's not tax this community with a greater ASF concern. Let's be
proactive though. Can you work with me to setup some panel of PMC
members where we can galvanize a policy? Some kind of java specific
panel at the ASF. Hopefully we can come up with something definative
together where all TLPs and their projects authoring java code can
conform to an official ASF standard.
Thanks,
Alex
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> And Option #3:
>
> org.apache.felix.framework
> org.apache.felix.bundle
> org.apache.felix.service
> org.apache.felix.other_subproject
+1 for Option #3
/Daniel
RE: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> a lot of org.apache.* packages: asn1, ldap, authx, naming, etc.
org.apache.naming, in fact, came from the Tomcat project and then Jakarta
Commons.
--- Noel
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> I am not against renaming the packages, but it would be nice if we
> could make this decision once and stick to it. We already discussed
> this and agreed on the current package naming scheme. I waited to
> commit source so we could start fresh...so much for that. :-)
>
> We have two options that are only slightly different.
>
> Option #1:
>
> org.apache.osgi.framework
> org.apache.osgi.bundle
> org.apache.osgi.service
> ...
>
> Option #2:
>
> org.apache.felix
> org.apache.osgi.bundle
> org.apache.osgi.service
And Option #3:
org.apache.felix.framework
org.apache.felix.bundle
org.apache.felix.service
org.apache.felix.other_subproject
This is the standard policy throughout the ASF with very few exceptions,
the biggest one being AFAICS... ahem... the Directory project which uses
a lot of org.apache.* packages: asn1, ldap, authx, naming, etc.
If we want to avoid name clashes in applications using several Apache
products and considering how fast the ASF is growing, projects should
put all their classes in the org.apache.{project-name} package.
Also, what is the real value of "osgi" in #2? We expect that a lot of
ASF projects will be using OSGi and will write a lot of bundles. These
bundles will use the root package of their respective project and not
org.apache.osgi. E.g. Cocoon bundles will be in org.apache.cocoon.
Similarily, the Felix project will host standard and general-purpose
services such as console, admin and monitoring tools, etc, which for the
same reason have to be in org.apache.felix.*
Package names should not be about the technology the classes they
contain rely on, nor the specification they implement, but about the
project and community that writes these classes and cares about them.
Using another policy is IMO an open door to name clashes and doesn't
follow the ASF principle that community is more important than the code.
And if doing the renaming is an issue now that the code is in SVN, I
volunteer for doing the change ;-)
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
On 8/18/05, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> One can argue that all OSGi-related stuff should be under a top-level
> OSGi package. Someone else can argue that all project-related stuff
> should be under a top-level project package.
I'm in favour of #3. It's as close to a standard as we'll get
(directory and tomcat are the only exceptions I know of).
I think this might be where there is a difference in opinion on what
constitutes the project. Felix is probably the OSGi implementation and
any bundles or services produced, not just the implementation, right?
I think the point earlier about going looking for osgi.apache.org and
not finding it is a good one, as is your one about jsr277.
I think a felix package is "safe". It's probably the least of your
concerns if you have to go through a project rename at some point
(which hopefully should be unlikely given it has been cleared).
Cheers,
Brett
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>Then I don't have a particular issue with it. Is there any benefit to
>putting the osgi label in that namespace? If there were another OSGi
>project within the ASF, would there be any benefit or detriment comparing
>options 2 and 3 Would a Derby block be under org.apache.osgi.derby or
>org.apache.derby.osgi? What do you envision being under the different
>spaces?
>
>
I can't say I have put so much thought into.
As I said in my other message, the issue here is creating a single
hierarchy when many hierarchies are possible.
One can argue that all OSGi-related stuff should be under a top-level
OSGi package. Someone else can argue that all project-related stuff
should be under a top-level project package.
I see both arguments.
I personally prefer stuff that is project-neutral (but OSGi-related) to
go into a separate osgi package, but I can accept any structure. I just
want to reach [reasonable] consensus and move on. :-)
I can also see an argument for not using the "osgi" package name at all,
because perhaps in the future the name of the technology could change,
e.g., it is rolled into JSR 277, then we would be left with this "weird"
osgi package name.
Still, I don't know if we should worry about this now...we can't
anticipate everything.
-> richard
RE: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > is the intent of your Option #2 to separate common things under
> > org.apache.osgi and felix specific packages under org.apache.felix?
> Yes, this was the basic premise.
Then I don't have a particular issue with it. Is there any benefit to
putting the osgi label in that namespace? If there were another OSGi
project within the ASF, would there be any benefit or detriment comparing
options 2 and 3 Would a Derby block be under org.apache.osgi.derby or
org.apache.derby.osgi? What do you envision being under the different
spaces?
--- Noel
Re: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>The standard argument against a namespace like org.apache.osgi would be
>whether or not some hypothetical other OSGi project at the ASF would ALSO
>want to use that package namespace.
>
>Is the intent of your Option #2 to separate common things under
>org.apache.osgi and felix specific packages under org.apache.felix?
>
>
Yes, this was the basic premise.
I am fine with all three options (where the 3rd option is everything
under Felix).
Ultimately, I don't really think any approach is significantly better
than the other. This is a tree we are talking about and these sorts of
issues always result when trying to create a mapping to a hierarchy.
If there is a standard, then that is probably reason enough to adopt the
standard approach. However, it sounds to me like it is not clear if
there is a standard. The funny thing is, the current package naming
scheme was used because some people said that Apache preferred such an
approach.
I clearly don't know what the standard is.
-> richard
RE: Package naming (was Re: [VOTE] Please pick a name for this project)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
The standard argument against a namespace like org.apache.osgi would be
whether or not some hypothetical other OSGi project at the ASF would ALSO
want to use that package namespace.
Is the intent of your Option #2 to separate common things under
org.apache.osgi and felix specific packages under org.apache.felix?
--- Noel