SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi,

By analogy with
http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/ReferenceNamespaces, should we
agree on a prefix such as "org.apache.sling.capability.MMM" for our
capability names, where MMM is the module name like "sightly"?

-Bertrand
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

Robert Munteanu-2
Hi,

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> By analogy with
> http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/ReferenceNamespaces, should we
> agree on a prefix such as "org.apache.sling.capability.MMM" for our
> capability names, where MMM is the module name like "sightly"?

I don't see why not, it's good to namespace them. I would be slightly
inclined to drop the 'capability' from the prefix, since it would look
a bit rendundant. Compare

   Require-Capability: org.apache.sling.capability.sightly;
filter:="(version=1.0)"

with

   Require-Capability: org.apache.sling.sightly; filter:="(version=1.0)"

Cheers,

Robert
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SLING-4358 - provide/require capability, should we define a standard for capability names?

Felix Meschberger-3
Hi

I think the capability here really says „this bundle implements Sightly Language Spec 1.1“ And since this spec is outside of Sling at [1] and commonly referred to as sightly.io I would think we should be using a namespace which matches the Sightly Language Spec and is not implementation specific with Sling

We could, of course, add an attribute indicating that this would be the Sling implementation.

Regards
Felix

[1] https://github.com/Adobe-Marketing-Cloud/sightly-spec


> Am 28.01.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Robert Munteanu <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> By analogy with
>> http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/ReferenceNamespaces, should we
>> agree on a prefix such as "org.apache.sling.capability.MMM" for our
>> capability names, where MMM is the module name like "sightly"?
>
> I don't see why not, it's good to namespace them. I would be slightly
> inclined to drop the 'capability' from the prefix, since it would look
> a bit rendundant. Compare
>
>   Require-Capability: org.apache.sling.capability.sightly;
> filter:="(version=1.0)"
>
> with
>
>   Require-Capability: org.apache.sling.sightly; filter:="(version=1.0)"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert