Jason van Zyl-5 wrote:
On 27-Jan-09, at 6:41 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
repositories. They might become OBRs at some point when OSGi becomes
more mainstream.
One thing I have been toying with for a while is to auto-magically
extend maven-jar-plugin to add the OSGi headers.
I
necessary. Capgemini encourages environmental awareness.
De: Henri Gomez [mailto:henri.go...@gmail.com]
Date: mer. 28/01/2009 18:04
À: Maven Users List
Objet : Re: RE : maven / osgi / repositories
2009/1/28 Deneux, Christophe christophe.den
-bnd.html
--- Deneux, Christophe christophe.den...@capgemini.com schrieb am Fr,
30.1.2009:
Von: Deneux, Christophe christophe.den...@capgemini.com
Betreff: RE : RE : RE : maven / osgi / repositories
An: Maven Users List users@maven.apache.org, Maven Users List
users@maven.apache.org
Datum
. 28/01/2009 18:04
À: Maven Users List
Objet : Re: RE : maven / osgi / repositories
2009/1/28 Deneux, Christophe christophe.den...@capgemini.com:
Isn't the role of the classifier field ?
instead of :
groupIdorg.apache.ant/groupId
artifactIdant/artifactId
version1.7.1/version
we could use
encourages environmental awareness.
De: Henri Gomez [mailto:henri.go...@gmail.com]
Date: mer. 28/01/2009 18:04
À: Maven Users List
Objet : Re: RE : maven / osgi / repositories
2009/1/28 Deneux, Christophe christophe.den...@capgemini.com:
Isn't the role
On 27-Jan-09, at 6:41 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
repositories. They might become OBRs at some point when OSGi becomes
more mainstream.
One thing I have been toying with for a while is to auto-magically
extend maven-jar-plugin to add the OSGi headers.
I really don't think this is a great
One thing I have been toying with for a while is to auto-magically
extend maven-jar-plugin to add the OSGi headers.
I really don't think this is a great idea. I think for a bundle to be useful
someone needs to provide proper imports and exports.
Right, but it make took years ;(
I haven't
]
Sent: Tue 1/27/2009 10:43 PM
To: Maven Users List
Subject: Re: maven / osgi / repositories
On 27-Jan-09, at 6:41 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
repositories. They might become OBRs at some point when OSGi becomes
more mainstream.
One thing I have been toying with for a while is to auto-magically
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Jason van Zyl jvan...@sonatype.com wrote:
On 27-Jan-09, at 6:41 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
repositories. They might become OBRs at some point when OSGi becomes
more mainstream.
One thing I have been toying with for a while is to auto-magically
extend
Gomez [mailto:henri.go...@gmail.com]
Date: mar. 27/01/2009 23:00
À: Maven Users List
Objet : Re: maven / osgi / repositories
as you point it out there is definitely an issue with the renaming of
groupId /artifactId as it will 'break' maven dependency management.
However I don't think
2009/1/28 Deneux, Christophe christophe.den...@capgemini.com:
Isn't the role of the classifier field ?
instead of :
groupIdorg.apache.ant/groupId
artifactIdant/artifactId
version1.7.1/version
we could use :
groupIdorg.apache.ant/groupId
artifactIdant/artifactId
version1.7.1/version
Hi Henri,
it seems to me that OSGi jars are not meant to be anything else that
traditional jars with extra information in their MANIFEST. I would
definitely recomment deploying them as standard jar as you would do
for any normal maven project.
One thing that could/would differentiate your OSGi
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:53:10 +1100, Samuel Le Berrigaud wrote:
Another point of reference you might consider is how the springsource
guys make OSGi-ified version of many java libraries in their bundle
repository [http://www.springsource.com/repository/]. This acts pretty
much as a simple
Another point of reference you might consider is how the springsource
guys make OSGi-ified version of many java libraries in their bundle
repository [http://www.springsource.com/repository/]. This acts pretty
much as a simple maven repository delivering jars.
..with renamed
Hi Henri,
it seems to me that OSGi jars are not meant to be anything else that
traditional jars with extra information in their MANIFEST. I would
definitely recomment deploying them as standard jar as you would do
for any normal maven project.
Simple jar with MANIFEST, but today very few
Hi,
as you point it out there is definitely an issue with the renaming of
groupId /artifactId as it will 'break' maven dependency management.
However I don't think that anyone but the project owner(s) should be
allowed to deploy a jar with their groupId/artifactId (to the public
repo). I believe
as you point it out there is definitely an issue with the renaming of
groupId /artifactId as it will 'break' maven dependency management.
However I don't think that anyone but the project owner(s) should be
allowed to deploy a jar with their groupId/artifactId (to the public
repo). I believe
repositories. They might become OBRs at some point when OSGi becomes
more mainstream.
One thing I have been toying with for a while is to auto-magically
extend maven-jar-plugin to add the OSGi headers.
I haven't given a lot of thought into what I need to do, but if I
recall correctly, getting
18 matches
Mail list logo
