On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:40 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Thursday 07 September 2006 23:45, John E. Conlon wrote: > > > If we: > > + left <scope> to do the first and second functions above (just like > > standard maven projects expect it to do) > > + added a <inlinedArtifact> element to the dependency element to > > indicate dependencies that are to be added to the bundle > > + allow <inlinedArtifact> to have child <exclusions> elements to > > exclude transitives from our bundle. > > > > Would this overcome the problem and meet requirements? > > IIUIC, that needs modifications to the Maven POM and that means changes to > Maven code. Why? I think that Maven parses the pom.xml into a Java hierarchy, > which is used for the merge of ancestors. Any unknown tags generate an error. Oops - BAIK.
> During the 'release' process, the POM that is being uploaded to repositories > is target/exported-pom.xml, which is generated from the Java object > hierarchy. (again, I might have misunderstood the process here...) > And if we have full Maven support behind changes, why not go for more > explicit > support?? I think that's a good idea. Is Jason van Zyl still working on adding something in the standard maven for creating OSGi bundles? - John
