aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
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 14:17:39 GMT
IMO we should only push it down a level if in fact we split it into 
multiple bundles.


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<>  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.


View raw message