Yeah, good point. I've managed to somehow include both versions in the manifest. The specification version (javamail 1.4) goes into the package version for OSGi, whereas the maven version (1.2-SNAPSHOT) goes into the Bundle-Version manifest entry. I suppose this is the right way to deal with that, but the OSGi expert may be able to confirm that.
On 9/21/07, Rick McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the specs, there are generally 2 version identifiers. The first > level is the implementation level the spec is supposed to be at. For > example, javamail 1.4 or javamail 1.3.1. The second is the Geronimo > release version of that specification. For example, the javamail 1.4 > spec in trunk is currently at the 1.2-SNAPSHOT level. Does the > OSGIfication of these specs need to capture both levels? > > Also, for the javamail spec, there's a separate subtree for the Provider > implementation, which also includes an uber jar that bundles the > provider and spec classes in one jar file. I suspect these should also > have OSGI bundles too. The SVN tree for these packages can be found here: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail > > Rick > > Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > So I've just commited a patch for everybody to review. > > I have tested some of the bundles inside servicemix 4.0, so at least > > i'm confident it won't break servicemix ;-) > > Seriously, they seem to be ok, though i had to limit the exported > > package from stax-api to javax.xml.stream* to not clash with other > > packages from the system bundle (I suppose this is the reason). > > See http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/ > > > > On 9/21/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> For ServiceMix 4.0, which will be based on OSGi, I will need to have > >> OSGified versions of some of the spec jars that geronimo provides. > >> It's quite easy to do in ServiceMix (see > >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/branches/servicemix-4.0/bundles/ > >> for servlet, j2ee-management, jms mainly), but I think it would be > >> more useful for other projects if the specs jars were bundles > >> themselves. > >> > >> This is quite a simple process that can be done incrementally without > >> any real side effect and low risk of regression. So unless someone > >> objects, I'd like to start working on that. > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> Guillaume Nodet > >> ------------------------ > >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
