Re: More flexibility in the OSGi manifest headers

> Barend,
>
>    I've done the initial work in this area this weekend, but I'm going to
> pass the torch to you to do the detail work. Specifically, here is how it
> works as of now:
>
> The GL build system is able to download jars it needs on-the-fly from a jar
> repository we keep at http://glazedlists.dev.java.net
> I have added bnd.jar to that repository and updated our build.xml file to
> use the "bndwrap" ANT task to make an OSGi bundle our of our vanilla GL
> jars.
>
> You can see this happen in the "jar" task of the GL build.xml file.
>
> This is as far as I've gotten. If you execute "ant jar" it *does* generate
> an OSGi bundle without errors. What I'd hope you can help with is refining
> the output to be more precise. Specifically:
>
> 1) All Import-Packages appear like this:
>
> Import-Package: ca.odell.glazedlists;resolution:=optional,
> ca.odell.glazedlists.calculation;resolution:=optional,
> ca.odell.glazedlists.event;resolution:=optional,
> ca.odell.glazedlists.gui;resolution:=optional,
> ca.odell.glazedlists.hibernate;resolution:=optional,
> ...
>
> but I doubt it's correct to have all packages marked
> "resolution:=optional".... even though I'm not terribly sure what that even
> means.
>
> 2) All packages are exported at the moment, including ".impl" packages.
> Since this is one of the areas that the OSGi spec precisely exists to
> service (making public classes in private packages inaccessible) it would be
> nice to be able to remove these impl packages from that section, or mark
> them private.
>
> 3) I don't have an OSGi container installed anywhere so I'm not testing any
> of this at the moment.
>
>
> The changes to build.xml are checked into HEAD but I did not rebuild the GL
> jars. Barend, are you able to pull the latest changes from CVS and try to
> refine the "jar" target to produce better manifest.mf entries? If so, that
> would help a lot.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:23 PM, W.B. Garvelink
> <barend.garvelink@...>wrote:
>
>> James,
>>
>>
>> Thanks so far. I have created the issue (#454) and I'll happily work
>> with you and Bruce to tackle any issues that may come up.
>>
>>
>> Barend