Using packaging "bundle" for SLP
|
View:
New views
7 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Using packaging "bundle" for SLP
by simonebordet
::
Rate this Message:
Hi,
the pom for SLP uses packaging "bundle". Is this necessary ? What advantages over "jar" ? It scares me that if I add a package, or if I type it wrong (like it was before r469), the classes are not added to the jar, making it useless. Thanks, Simon -- http://bordet.blogspot.com --- Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are, to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability, the implementation technique must be flawless. Victoria Livschitz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
Re: Using packaging "bundle" for SLP
by Alan.Cabrera
::
Rate this Message:
On Aug 1, 2008, at 3:20 AM, Simone Bordet wrote: > Hi, > > the pom for SLP uses packaging "bundle". > Is this necessary ? What advantages over "jar" ? People using OSGi can load it > It scares me that if I add a package, or if I type it wrong (like it > was before r469), the classes are not added to the jar, making it > useless. Classes are always added to the jar. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
Re: Using packaging "bundle" for SLP
by simonebordet
::
Rate this Message:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Alan Cabrera <adc@...> wrote: >> the pom for SLP uses packaging "bundle". >> Is this necessary ? What advantages over "jar" ? > > People using OSGi can load it Well, for that is enough the jar plugin and its manifest configuration, no ? >> It scares me that if I add a package, or if I type it wrong (like it >> was before r469), the classes are not added to the jar, making it >> useless. > > Classes are always added to the jar. They are not. If you have a typo (for example livetrbe instead of livetribe) in the list of packages in the pom, the jar will be empty. And if I do not want to export a package on purpose, it will not be in the jar. I find this plugin a bit... "strange" :) Simon -- http://bordet.blogspot.com --- Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are, to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability, the implementation technique must be flawless. Victoria Livschitz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
Re: Using packaging "bundle" for SLP
by Alan.Cabrera
::
Rate this Message:
On Aug 1, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Simone Bordet wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Alan Cabrera <adc@...> > wrote: >>> the pom for SLP uses packaging "bundle". >>> Is this necessary ? What advantages over "jar" ? >> >> People using OSGi can load it > > Well, for that is enough the jar plugin and its manifest > configuration, no ? As you've seen, getting the package dependencies can be tricky. >>> It scares me that if I add a package, or if I type it wrong (like it >>> was before r469), the classes are not added to the jar, making it >>> useless. >> >> Classes are always added to the jar. > > They are not. If you have a typo (for example livetrbe instead of > livetribe) in the list of packages in the pom, the jar will be empty. > And if I do not want to export a package on purpose, it will not be in > the jar. I find this plugin a bit... "strange" :) Yikes, you're right. That's pretty crappy. I think that maybe a better way might be to wrap the core jar in an OSGi bundle. Then we can supply OSGi bundle activators to allow for configuration, etc. WDYT? Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
Re: Using packaging "bundle" for SLP
by simonebordet
::
Rate this Message:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Alan Cabrera <adc@...> wrote: > Yikes, you're right. That's pretty crappy. I think that maybe a better way > might be to wrap the core jar in an OSGi bundle. Then we can supply OSGi > bundle activators to allow for configuration, etc. > > WDYT? I agree. Simon -- http://bordet.blogspot.com --- Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are, to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability, the implementation technique must be flawless. Victoria Livschitz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
Re: Using packaging "bundle" for SLP
by Alan.Cabrera
::
Rate this Message:
On Aug 4, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Simone Bordet wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Alan Cabrera <adc@...> > wrote: >> Yikes, you're right. That's pretty crappy. I think that maybe a >> better way >> might be to wrap the core jar in an OSGi bundle. Then we can >> supply OSGi >> bundle activators to allow for configuration, etc. >> >> WDYT? > > I agree. Cool. Check in your code tonight, your time, I'll make two modules, core and osgi. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
Re: Using packaging "bundle" for SLP
by simonebordet
::
Rate this Message:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Alan Cabrera <adc@...> wrote: > Cool. Check in your code tonight, your time, I'll make two modules, core > and osgi. It's ready, go for it. Simon -- http://bordet.blogspot.com --- Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are, to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability, the implementation technique must be flawless. Victoria Livschitz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
