I suspect that those of us who like the simple OSGi style directives have spent a lot of time hand crafting OSGi manifest headers and don't want to switch gears inside this little block of instructions for BND. Those who want to see XML probably don't care much for this specific syntax (yet). I also agree with Carlos and if its going to have an XML option, the element heavy Maven style might be the way to go even if it is a little less elegant.
I still think this is something that will evolve quite a bit between now and a 1.0 release so I am not sure if its worth the effort right now, but if it can be done both ways without too much effort, maybeit is a good experiment in usability. Chris On 1/28/07, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Carlos Sanchez wrote: > On 1/26/07, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> One thing we could possibly do is to allow both: >> >> <embed-dependency> >> groupId=org.mortbay.jetty;artifactId=jetty,*;scope=runtime</embed- >> dependency> >> >> or >> >> <embed> >> <match groupId="org.mortbay.jetty" artifactId="jetty"/> >> <match scope="runtime"/> >> </embed> >> >> In the spirit of not trying to make more work for you, I would be >> happy to contribute the latter. >> > > A maven convention is not to use xml attributes but subelements > > <embed> > <match> > <groupId>org.mortbay.jetty</groupId> > <artifactId>jetty<artifactId/> > </match> > </embed> Do I hear allowing all three!! ;-) -> richard
