aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alasdair Nottingham <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The name of the util module (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) version 0.2-incubating release candidate 05)
Date Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:37:20 GMT
I agree

Alasdair

On 1 Sep 2010, at 15:17, Joe Bohn <joebohn@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<hughesj@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

Mime
View raw message