wow, kind of complex just to get features running :) just my 2 cents here ;)
2011/10/12 Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> > > Would it make more sense to have something a bit more extensible than an > attribute? For example, I had some bundles I wanted installed on an IBM > JDK, > but not on a Sun JDK. Also, JDK 7 vs 6 differences and such can also > come > into play. I'm kind of thinking something similar to the Maven profile > activation element things, but make it actually work. :-) We could add > <and> and <or> elements and such in there. > > Either that or define a simple DSL for the attribute > install="${Java.Version}=7" etc.... > > > > Dan > > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:13:23 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > I also prefer a feature attribute. > > Guillaume just mentioned that it means it's "built-in" the feature, and > > don't let the user choose its behavior. > > > > Regarding the attribute name, install="auto" or install="manual" looks > > good to me. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 10/12/2011 12:10 PM, Ioannis Canellos wrote: > > > I would prefer an attribute in the feature descriptor, as it would > > > provide more granularity for custom features. > > > We may need to rethink the name of the attribute to avoid confusing our > > > users. > > > > > > maybe call it manual="true/false" or deploy="auto/manual" > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] > http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- -- *Achim Nierbeck* Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
