Re: [orbit-dev] OSGi reintroduction to Orbit

[Krzysztof Daniel <kdaniel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 08:45 +0000, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
> > Is there something we can do about this issue?
>    Move this discussion to the Orbit ML and refer to it on the cross-project-ml.

Done.

> 
> Looking at the example you give, I think that the naming rules that have been applied by Orbit (which are based on the content of the jar) make more sense than using the concatenation of Group id an Aritfact id where you end up with really ludicrous names. 
> 
The best BSNs are from a project where a jar reflects project name, for
example maven group org.eclipse.jdt with artifact org.eclipse.jdt.core
would be assembled into BSN org.eclipse.jdt.core. Simple, beautiful and
following all the rules.

But that's not the point.

The point is that once BSN is introduced into the upstream project,
Eclipse Orbit counterpart should take effort to reconcile with it
(although sometimes it may not be possible, especially if it is a legal
issue). Upstream utility developers do understand naming guidelines and
usually are ready to change their naming when given proper explanation,
f.e. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGGING-151.

This reconciliation process/guidelines/policy/practice is completely
missing and that is what I'm trying to address.

I hope that one day Orbit will become interface to other OS ecosystems,
not just a one way sink.

-- 
Krzysztof Daniel <kdaniel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Red Hat