aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lin Sun <linsun....@gmail.com>
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 13:58:12 GMT
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.

Mime
View raw message