> Hi Simon,
> I can commit the sources in the CVS. Here are the open issues
> that should be resolved prior moving code to the CVS.
> 1. Naming.
> Following the discussion the last proposed naming is:
> 1.1 org.eclipse.equionx.initialprovisioning
> other suggestion: org.eclipse.equionx.ip
+1 for org.eclipse.equinox.initialprovisioning
I think this name will reduce an confusion with the
rest of the equinox provisioning work.
> 1.2 org.eclipse.equionx.ds
> other suggestion: org.eclipse.equionx.scr
+1 for org.eclipse.equinox.scr
> 1.3 org.eclipse.equinox.io
> 1.4 org.eclipse.equinox.util
> 1.5 org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin
> 2. Replacing. If we use the names org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin and
> org.eclipse.equionx.ds they collide with the current one. Can we replace
> the code in the CVS at this stage directly or temporary other names
> will be used?
There is no problem replacing the current implementations
in the incubator. To be clear this is under the equinox-incubator
directory at dev.eclipse.org:/cvsroot/eclipse. At this
point I suggest we get the initial code released in the incubator. It
is likely that a number of refactorings are going be needed to follow
other eclipse coding practices (i.e. using "internal"
package names etc.).
I'm not fussed on getting all the names correct initially.
We can easily rename them if needed in the incubator.
> 3. javax.microedition.io package
> Now it is in Connector services implementation. This is not a good
> choice because it is needed only on Java SE VMs. J2ME VMs
> contains that package. In our equinox distribution it is a fragment
> the system bundle that is installed only on Java SE VMs.
> But initially we can put it inside the connector implementation.
I think we should consider separating this out into
another bundle and import the packages from org.eclipse.equinox.io (but
we can do this later). I'm not sure why it has to be a system bundle fragment.
I think we should make it a normal bundle (called javax.microedition.io?).