Re: [gemini-dev] Maven artifact IDs

[Costin Leau <cleau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Les,

With regards to blueprint and symbolic name, if I recall correctly,
there were some Eclipse guidelines that I followed. The sym name needs
to be unique so using the domain/package names makes sense.
The bundle name on the other hand doesn't - it just needs to be a
friendly, human readable identifier.
Sure it could have been eclipse-gemini-blueprint-core but that to me,
seems to long and redundant hence the shorter version.

In the end, there are no hard rules just naming conventions. Most of the
bundles in EBR do not have a sym name this long so using the convention
you mention works just fine.
There's nothing preventing you from doing the same - it's just a matter
of preference.

Hope this helps,

On 8/31/2010 9:09 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm looking through blueprint's source code as an example of some best
> practices for developing my own OSGi bundles.  I notice that the
> project's Maven artifactId's are fairly standard for general Maven use
> in that they use the name-name2-name3 convention (with dashes).
> 
> But is not the convention for Maven-created OSGi bundles to have the
> artifactId be the same as the Bundle-SymbolicName?
> 
> I've noticed almost all of the Spring EBR bundles are like this.  I'm
> just wondering if 1) I should do the same in my own project and 2) if
> this is a fairly standard convention, does the Gemini Blueprint project
> have plans to switch to that?
> 
> Any thoughts and/or recommendations?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Les

-- 
Costin