On 1 Oct 2009, at 19:47, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I personally would like to propose the following structure:
trunk/jndi
trunk/jpa
I think they should be migrated to maven, package renamed, etc...
I also think that where it makes sense, having not too fine grained
bundles is better. I don't really see the point in having two
separate bundles for the jndi stuff, given both parts will have to be
implemented anyway. Or at least, we should do as it's for blueprint,
and provide a single bundle in addition to smaller ones if others
think it might be useful.
The reason for splitting the JNDI bundles is to allow alternative
implementations of the osgi:services/ namespace handler without having
to redo/repackage the core RFC 142 implementation. There is a use for
this in the IBM code. But I can see that from the point alone of the
Aries code base it might be neater to stick everything in one bundle.
Also, for com.ibm.osgi.util, unless there are plans to actually use it
in other bundles, i would also include it in the jpa one or at least
embed this class as a private package if it will be reused.
There are two other places the com.ibm.osgi.util bundle gets used in
the IBM code that is not part of the initial contribution, which is
why we didn't want to put it into the JPA code. But this argument of
course does not really apply anymore in the Aries code base.
I'd be happy to help with the maven stuff if needed.
2009/10/1 Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]>:
Hi, I have just committed r820722 - the initial contribution from IBM
[1]. There is a readme [2]. The next step is to discuss & move over
to
the trunk. The Software Grant Agreement has been sent to
[email protected]
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/contrib/ibm
[2] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/contrib/ibm/
README
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
