On 22 December 2014 at 22:37, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Am Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:29:34 +
> schrieb sebb :
>
>> But if we always use the same symbolic name, it may look as though an
>> app that was built using VFS2.0 will just be able to use VFS19.2
>> without any adjustments.
>> However, that may
Am Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:29:34 +
schrieb sebb :
> But if we always use the same symbolic name, it may look as though an
> app that was built using VFS2.0 will just be able to use VFS19.2
> without any adjustments.
> However, that may not be the case.
Actually in OSGi a new major number means th
On 22 December 2014 at 21:57, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Am Mon, 22 Dec 2014 21:43:01 +
> schrieb sebb :
>
>> > a) follow the math lead and make it org.apache.commons.vfs2 (asuming
>> > this does not break anything from 2.0 to 2.1)
>>
>> If the OSGi bundle name relates to the Java package name o
Am Mon, 22 Dec 2014 21:43:01 +
schrieb sebb :
> > a) follow the math lead and make it org.apache.commons.vfs2 (asuming
> > this does not break anything from 2.0 to 2.1)
>
> If the OSGi bundle name relates to the Java package name or the Maven
> coordinates then this might break things.
Well,
On 22 December 2014 at 20:59, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in commons-math I see the comment, that the OSGi bundle-symbolic name
> should be aligned with the package name (i.e. major version).
>
> For VFS2 this is currently not the case. I can see multiple solutions
> for 2.1:
>
> a) follow
Hello,
in commons-math I see the comment, that the OSGi bundle-symbolic name
should be aligned with the package name (i.e. major version).
For VFS2 this is currently not the case. I can see multiple solutions
for 2.1:
a) follow the math lead and make it org.apache.commons.vfs2 (asuming
this does
