[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[equinox-dev] Initial Provisioning name and how it relates to Equinox Provisioning


The name org.eclipse.equinox.prov.initial seems like a good option.  Naming discussions can go on forever and are so easy to contribute an opinion to ;-)

For now the code was released under org.eclipse.equinox.ip to make progress.  Discussions in the previous thread make it clear that org.eclipse.equinox.ip will likely not keep before graduating the code.

Jeff, if we rename to org.eclipse.equinox.prov.initial does that imply the initial provisioning implementation will interact with the new provisioning work?  How do we see these two relating to each other?  Initial provisioning should be able to provision any management agent (e.g. New Equinox Provisioning, OBR, old Eclipse Update Manager etc.).  I do not think Initial Provisioning implementation should depend on the Equinox provisioning work.  Thoughts?

Tom



Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

07/08/2007 04:50 PM

Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: Re[4]: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions






Comments on various comments...


- "provisioning" is a non-starter...  There is a whole Equinox provisioning effort underway and if anything is going to be "provisioning" that will (note that currently "prov" is used).


- For better or worse we have adopted a convention of having BSN's correspond to the "major package name" (or vice versa if you prefer) in the bundle.  Or, if you prefer, the major package name and BSN correspond to the project name.  Or...  The point is, there is a convention already in use and we should only deviate from that with good cause.


- Alex's questions re the "initial" in "initial provisioning" actually raised in my mind a different option for the naming of this bundle.  We have some provisioning (aka "prov") work going on in Equinox.  We could relate the initial provisioning implementation to that by using the name

       org.eclipse.equinox.prov.initial

Note that there is a non-trivial chance that "prov" will be renamed before getting out of the incubator but that's pretty much par for the course and the initial provisioning bundle could/would get renamed at the same time.  Just a thought.


Jeff



"Alex Blewitt" <alex.blewitt@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

07/08/2007 01:35 PM

Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To
"Equinox development mailing list" <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: Re[4]: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions







The only reference to 'initial' is in the title of the chapter. The
document talks about *provisioning*, not initial provisioning. Initial
is merely an adjective used to describe the provisioning itself.

See, for example, 110.4 where it discusses 'The Provisioning Service'.
Also note that all the constants begin with PROVISIONING_ and indeed,
the classes that make it up are in org.osgi.service.provisioning.
There's no 'initial' about it. In fact, the only initials that have
been used with respect to provisioning have been 'I.P.'.

The fact that it's the first Provisioning Service to be consulted
shouldn't be part of the name. It's merely an adjective used to
describe it.

In any case, I was just observing that the OSGi spec used
'provisioning' almost exclusively in terms of the package, class and
constant names in the description, yet it seems that the Equinox names
are being based on the chapter title. Either way, I don't care;
anything is better than 'ip'. Though frankly, I don't see why
'org.eclipse.equinox. provisioning' providing
'org.osgi.service.provisioning' is such a bad idea.

Alex.

On 08/07/07, BJ Hargrave <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, read the spec! :-) Then you will understand the "initial" part!
> --
>
> BJ Hargrave
> Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
> hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> office: +1 386 848 1781
> mobile: +1 386 848 3788
>
>
>
>
> "Alex Blewitt" <alex.blewitt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 2007-07-08 10:29
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To
> "Equinox development mailing list" <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: Re[4]: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, why not call it 'o.e.provisioning' then? What's so initial about it?
>
> On 08/07/07, BJ Hargrave <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > o.e.eq.ip should only be an internal (private) package name. The public
> > API is defined by OSGi: org.osgi.service.provisioning.
> > --
> >
> > BJ Hargrave
> > Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
> > OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
> > hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > office: +1 386 848 1781
> > mobile: +1 386 848 3788
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Alex Blewitt" <alex.blewitt@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 2007-07-08 07:21
> > Please respond to
> > Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > To
> > "Pavlin Dobrev" <p.dobrev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc
> > Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject
> > Re: Re[4]: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be better to have a more descriptive bundle symbollic name,
> > that's for sure. The question then becomes whether it makes sense to
> > keep the bundle symbolic name and package name in sync. Given that
> > most package imports are handled automatically by Eclipse anyway, the
> > only reason I can think for having a shorter package name is that it
> > takes up a few less chars in the various UTF-8 constant pools in the
> > .class files; but if that were really an issue, we'd be calling the
> > packages o.e.eq.ip anyway.
> >
> > The danger with using 'ip' as the package name is that it effectively
> > prevents anyone from having a package with the same name for unrelated
> > services; for example, an OSGi bundle for generating ICMP IP packets.
> >
> > I'd vote for a longer name in both cases. Not that my vote counts for
> > anything, but as a periodic lurker on the mailing list ...
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> > On 08/07/07, Pavlin Dobrev <p.dobrev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > My personal opinion also is that IP is a horible name but maybe as BJ
> > > propose we can use long bundle symbolic name?
> > >
> > > -Pavlin
> > >
> > > AB> I'm glad I'm not alone. I've asked the question to a wider
> audience
> > to
> > > AB> see if they'd get the reference:
> > >
> > > AB> http://www.eclipsezone.com/eclipse/forums/t98469.html
> > >
> > > AB> On 07/07/07, Remy Chi Jian Suen <remy.suen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> You're not alone, Alex. I think ip is a horrible name.
> > > >> initprovisioning or initprov or something would've been better.
> > > >> There's just no way that someone's going to know that 'ip' is
> > 'initial
> > > >> provisioning'.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Rem
> > > >>
> > > >> On 7/7/07, Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> > Am I really the only one who thinks '.ip'  is a bad name?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Alex.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 07/07/07, Simon Kaegi <Simon_Kaegi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> > > That's great! I've just done a quick sanity check and
> everything
> > compiles,
> > > >> > > starts and is ready to try out.
> > > >> > >  Thanks.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > For anyone wanting to take a look, the following new projects
> > were added to
> > > >> > > the incubator.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 1) org.eclipse.equinox.ds
> > > >> > > 2) org.eclipse.equinox.io
> > > >> > > 3) org.eclipse.equinox.ip
> > > >> > > 4) org.eclipse.equinox.util
> > > >> > > 5) org.eclipse.equinox.wireadmin
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I had one cosmetic question for equinox.util. Currently the BSN
> > is
> > > >> > > "org.eclipse.equinox.util.putifull" -- is there some reason
> it's
> > not just
> > > >> > > org.eclipse.equinox.util?
> > > >> > > -Simon
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 07/07/2007 06:41:23
> AM:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > In CVS under your proposed naming.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > -Pavlin
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > OK, I'm not particular about the names right now.  Since we
> > already
> > > >> > > > have a DS bundle lets just use org.eclipse.equinox.ds for
> > > >> > > > declarative services.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I also like org.eclipse.equinox.ip for initial provisioning
> but
> > > >> > > > thought it might be to short :)  but it is snappy.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Pavlin, if these are ok with you please release with the
> names
> > org.
> > > >> > > > eclipse.equinox.ds and org.eclipse.equinox.ip.  As I said
> > before it
> > > >> > > > is no big deal to rename the bundles if needed in the
> incubator
> > later.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Tom
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Chris Aniszczyk/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> > > >> > > > Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > > > 07/05/2007 09:34 PM
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Please respond to
> > > >> > > > Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > To
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > cc
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Subject
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Re: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > as an outsider, +1 for DS instead of SCR, there's like 5
> people
> > that
> > > >> > > > would get the SCR reference :)
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > initialprovisioning is really long....
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Cheers,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > ---
> > > >> > > > Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer |
> > http://mea-bloga.
> > > >> > > > blogspot.com | +1.860.839.2465
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed] Jeff McAffer ---07/05/2007 09:13:02 PM---I
> > agree
> > > >> > > > with all/most Tom said. In the end we should look to have
> just
> > one
> > > >> > > > DS implementation, Ultimately I suggest that it be
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > > From:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > > Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > > To:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > > Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > > Date:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > > 07/05/2007 09:13 PM
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > > Subject:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > > Re: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I agree with all/most Tom said. In the end we should look to
> > have
> > > >> > > > just one DS implementation, Ultimately I suggest that it be
> > called
> > > >> > > > o.e.e.ds. Never did like "scr". I'm a little bummed by o.e.e.
> > > >> > > > initialprovisioning. o.e.e.ip is snappier and I doubt that
> > anyone
> > > >> > > > would get confused with Intelectual property, or Internet
> > Protocol
> > > >> > > > or, ... In any event, it is a mild dislike so...
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Lets get the code in the incubator and move forward.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Jeff
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > > > Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > > > 07/05/2007 03:51 PM
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Please respond to
> > > >> > > > Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > To
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > cc
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Subject
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Re: [equinox-dev] Prosyst contributions
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > [image removed]
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > 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 of
> > > >> > > > > the system bundle that is installed only on Java SE VMs.
> > > >> > > > > But initially we can put it inside the connector
> > implementation.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > -Pavlin
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > 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?).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Tom _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > > equinox-dev mailing list
> > > >> > > > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > > equinox-dev mailing list
> > > >> > > > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > > equinox-dev mailing list
> > > >> > > > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > > equinox-dev mailing list
> > > >> > > > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > equinox-dev mailing list
> > > >> > > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > equinox-dev mailing list
> > > >> > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> > > >> >
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> equinox-dev mailing list
> > > >> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> > > >>
> > > AB> _______________________________________________
> > > AB> equinox-dev mailing list
> > > AB> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > AB> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > equinox-dev mailing list
> > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > equinox-dev mailing list
> > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev

_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev