On 8 March 2011 10:52, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Am Dienstag, den 08.03.2011, 10:38 +0000 schrieb Alasdair Nottingham: >> On 8 March 2011 08:56, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > The JNDI API module still has the OSGi JNDI API sources in it. Shouldn't >> > this be changed to re-export the classes from the official Enterprise >> > library ? >> > >> >> So does blueprint. This isn't a problem, you can have multiple sources of an >> API >> in OSGi. > > That's not my point ;-) My point is that the source of the API is in the > Apache SVN. I think the pom.xml should have a dependency to the > org.osgi.enterprise artifact and by means of a Export-Package include > the JDNI API package in the final bundle. > > Similar as we do it in the Apache Felix spec implementations (except the > framework which is special ;-) ).
I know. I was just pointing to precedence elsewhere in aries and I just don't see the what the difference is. The code in org.osgi.enterprise is no more or less "official" than the source code in aries. > >> >> > On a related matter: I don't think the import exclusion of the OSGi JNDI >> > API package is not required in this pom.xml. >> > >> >> I'm not sure I follow given the use of the double negative here. > > Point is the pom.xml has: > > <aries.osgi.import> > !org.osgi.service.jndi*, > * > </aries.osgi.import> > > where this "!org.osgi.service.jndi" part is not needed (actually BND > emits a warning). Raise a bug? I'm happy to fix it. > > Regards > Felix > > -- Alasdair Nottingham [email protected]
