Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 August 2007 05:56, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>> I tried to use the Felix Commons version of commons-loggings, but its
>> required dependency graph was huge.
> 
> Your case is specific to logging[1] and IMHO not really representative. 
> Secondly, you have a strong point that "good wrapping requires effort", which 
> I totally agree with. And in fact, that is one good reason to question 
> the "en masse" wrapping of thrid-party jars that people embarked on here, 
> without much second thought whether the bundle would work or not. My point 
> is, this is a separate concern.
> 
> What Stuart is essentially saying is that the Maven Bundle plugin can use a 
> POM artifact (housed at Felix, sure) that will do the wrapping at your end 
> for you. No need to create a copy of repo1.maven.org which just has different 
> manifest in the jars and another POM.
> End of the day, every built bundle that is wrapping the same third-party jar 
> will be identical (probably some Build-Date entry will differ), without 
> effort on your part. Is that bad? Or is it just that you need to use the 
> Bundle plugin that bothers you? I think it is just that you assumed that you 
> have to put in an effort...
> 
Hmm, I think for inhouse development this is fine, but what about open
source projects? Of course this depends on the distribution of such a
project, but if it wants to provide a "download everything in one go"
distribution, it has to built these wrappers as well. And this has to be
done by each and every project which does it this way. Which obviously
duplicates the effort.

So, this puts me into the "we should provide commons"-camp, again :)

But the concerns raised here are of course valid: we should only provide
a wrapper bundle, if we are sure that it works as expected. But as I
said in a previous mail, I don't see a propblem if we do proper voting
on such a candidate. If three people think that it works as expected
this should be enough as a verification I think.

Carsten

-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to