Or, maybe this is OK? And it just needs to be documented before newbies try to use it and expect a working result?
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Pete Carapetyan <[email protected]> wrote: > Wondering if my experience below is really what the pax community > intends for the [hundreds, thousands of potential?] newbie OSGi > developers who might wish to use pax as it's entry point to the world > of OSGi? > > Per earlier, I'm an OSGi newbie attempting to learn and update docs > for pax OSGi to work in a Maven/Spring/OSGi combination. I have many > hours trying to learn why my pax generated projects don't work when I > run them in pax exam. Very time consuming. > > To make a very long story short - I write a MANIFEST.MF and Apache > Maven Bundle Plugin re-writes it during mvn install to suit itself. > Which would be fine if > > a. I had known it was happening and knew to check it before burning > hour after hour checking everything else that didn't matter. > b. The plugin itself overwrote my MANIFEST.MF correctly > > Bottom line is that it strips out some of the packages I need from my > Import-Package: statements that I had very explicitly written. Once I > learned that it was doing this, 15 minutes later and I've got > everything fixed using the osgi.bnd file. Nevermind the hours and > hours spent looking everywhere but here to figure out what was going > wrong. Basically if you don't unzip and examine the generated > Import-Package: you never even know that you got pimped. > > Something seems horribly wrong here if we intend to attract the new > developers that OSGi would require to hit critical mass and thus > support pax's work. Am I all washed up on this? Comments? > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
