Hello,
Thanks David for your complete answer and your tips.
It has helped me in bundle construction. And it is a good idea to
contact project authors about modifications (that could be also done
on original project).
Gabriel
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:42:22 -0500
From: David M Williams <
david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [orbit-dev] Hello, and questions about preparing a bundle
for orbit
To: Orbit Developer discussion <
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
<
OFD906FA6A.B370D4FA-ON852576CD.006AF8B7-852576CD.006C15A1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> And I have a question about the version number, in the original
> library, version number is not obvious and could be related to
"2007.10.20
> beta ". For instant I put "0.1.0.qualifier", but I would like to
> have a confirmation that I am in the good way. And because it is a
> beta version,
I think 0.1.0.qualifier would be good, under the circumstances. You might
work with that project, and encourage them to adopt an OSGi friendly
versioning .... or, if they intend to always use the timestamp approach.
For example, you might ask them how their version number would signify
"new function" vs. "service" vs. "breaking API change". Perhaps you can
help "educate" them on the merits of OSGi versioning? :)
> I would like to know if I need to put "Incubation" in
> bundle's name as required for eclipse projects.
No. But a "note" needs to be made in the IP Log xml file (I forget if its
a separate element, or literally in the note element, but hopefully you'll
see an example, with that hint).
> Another question about the namespace, originally it is only
> "prefuse", I would like to keep it as it is only for packages for
> backward compatibility, however I would prefer to name the bundle
> project "org.prefuse"
I think the conventions would dictate "prefuse". Again, you might work
with the project authors, and ask why they picked such a non-standard
package naming pattern. If they plan to stick with that, I'd stay with
"prefuse". If, for example, they say in next release they plan to use
"org.prefuse", then I think it'd be ok to use that as the bundle name now,
even though wouldn't match current packages.
HTH
