Thats looks good, is there a reason Tuscany uses maven groupid org.apache.tuscany.sca for everything? If these shaded jars used a separate groupid it would be easier to see what jars are available just by looking in the Maven repository
On 1/7/10, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:18 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Johnny Simons <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Are there going to be OSGi manifests added to these jars? >>>> >>> >>> Now comes the fun, enforcing modularity in the shaded jars :) >>> >> >> >> Actually I don't see any issue, the shaded jars would work just like >> the individual jars but instead of having all the OSGi headers >> scattered over many manifests they'll be in the single manifest. >> Looking around other OSGi projects doing this seems quite a common >> practice. It may also be useful to see these all in one place so we >> can for example easily see what are the complete set of api/spi >> exports we have in Tuscany. >> >> ...ant >> > > FYI, i've updated the shaded jars to have separate jars with just the > Tuscany classes in one jar and the Tuscany classes plus all the > dependencies in another jar named with the suffix -nodep. That matches > the way a number of other projects do things. I've also started adding > shaded jars for more extensions, ideally I'll get all of them done for > the M5 release (though i wont hold the release if they're not all done > in time). If anyone wants to help that would be good, it would be > great to get the OSGi manifest headers done for these too if anyone > wants to help with that, > > ...ant >
