Hi Achim,
you probably right :)
Regards
JB
On 10/12/2011 02:06 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
guys, what happened to KISS here?
this is kinda tricky and for me it's just a bit to much :)
regards, Achim
2011/10/12 Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[email protected]>
Hi Dan,
in that case, we could "respin" the feature trigger concept.
The feature triggers allow you some Karaf scripting after a feature
installation.
And we would be able to have something like:
<feature name="xx" version="yy">
<bundle>...</bundle>
<feature version="bb">BB</feature>
<trigger phase="post">
if (${Java.Version})=7
feature:install xx/yy
echo "Features Installed"
</trigger>
</feature>
WDYT ?
Regards
JB
On 10/12/2011 01:59 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Would it make more sense to have something a bit more extensible than an
attribute? For example, I had some bundles I wanted installed on an IBM
JDK,
but not on a Sun JDK. Also, JDK 7 vs 6 differences and such can also
come
into play. I'm kind of thinking something similar to the Maven profile
activation element things, but make it actually work. :-) We could
add
<and> and<or> elements and such in there.
Either that or define a simple DSL for the attribute
install="${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"
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
