Sounds reasonable to me. Alasdair
On 11 March 2010 12:36, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > What about using properties instead of rewriting the whole > configuraiton for the plugin for each bundle ? > So instead of having: > > <build> > <plugins> > <plugin> > <groupId>org.apache.felix</groupId> > <artifactId>maven-bundle-plugin</artifactId> > <configuration> > <instructions> > <Import-Package> > org.osgi.framework;version="1.5", > org.osgi.service.cm;version="[1.2.0,2.0.0)", > * > </Import-Package> > <Export-Package> > org.apache.aries.transaction.exception* > </Export-Package> > <Private-Package> > org.apache.aries.transaction* > </Private-Package> > > <Bundle-SymbolicName>${pom.artifactId}</Bundle-SymbolicName> > </instructions> > </configuration> > </plugin> > </plugins> > </build> > > The module above would simply override a few properties: > > <properties> > <aries.osgi.import> > org.osgi.framework;version="1.5", > org.osgi.service.cm;version="[1.2.0,2.0.0)", > * > </aries.osgi.import> > <aries.osgi.export> > org.apache.aries.transaction.exception* > </aries.osgi.export> > <aries.osgi.private> > org.apache.aries.transaction* > </aries.osgi.export> > </properties> > > This doesn't look like it brings much, but the real benefit is that > you can leave default values untouched. > For example, we can define default values for the osgi range version > policy for imported packages, for the symbolic name, version, etc. ... > This means that for simple bundles, you can only define the minimum > set of proeprties sufficient to generate a nice bundle. > > Thoughts ? > > P.S.: a real example can be found for Camel: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/camel/trunk/ > But there are a lot of other projects doing that. > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > -- Alasdair Nottingham [email protected]
