[orbit-dev] SLF4J Bundle Naming Question

[Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Orbit Committers,

I'm in the process of updating SLF4J API to 1.5.10. I also have
submitted CQs to add some of the SLF4J wrappers/adapters/integration
pieces for other log systems to Orbit as well.

I need your opinion/advice on the bundle naming.


What we have today:

SLF4J API
 - main package: "org.slf4j"
 - bsn: "org.slf4j.api"


The following new packages need to be "orbit-tified":

SLF4J jcl-over-slf4j
 - main package: "org.apache.commons.logging"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.jcl"
 - bsn?: "org.apache.commons.logging.slf4j"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.org.apache.commons.logging"

SLF4J jul-to-slf4j
 - main package: "org.slf4j.bridge"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.jul"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.bridge"

SLF4J log4j-over-slf4j
 - main package: "org.apache.log4j"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.log4j"
 - bsn?: "org.apache.log4j.slf4j"
 - bsn?: "org.slf4j.org.apache.log4j"

SLF4J EXT
 - main package: "org.slf4j.ext"
 - bsn: "org.slf4j.ext"


AFAIK the EXT package is simple. There is no other option. From my
feeling I tend to always prefer the first options. I think it gives a
stronger indication of the grouping of those bundles, i.e. they just
belong together.

What's also possible is the second option for *-over-slf4j. It's based
on
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Bundle_Naming#Issue_3_:_Distinguishing_different_implementations
But I don't know if that would cause too much confusion.

However, I'm a bit lost with the "jul-to-slf4j" bundle. The package name
really just doesn't fit with the bsn. But on the other hand, the package
name doesn't mean anything. There could be other "bridges" in the future
as well. This would open the door for split-packages if the SLF4J team
places them into the same package. Don't like that path.

What are your thoughts?

-Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://wagenknecht.org/