Hi Kyle, Yes, tiny bundles 1.0 packaging is not modular at all. Its basically a flat bundle (on fits it all) version of the version we implemented when it was part of Pax Swissbox. So, yes it is intentional to get the basic, do one thing, functionality working and out of the door. Its not intentional if you think of what it should be ;) So, bottomline, we should have to assemblies, one "all dependencies included" and one raw one with nothing included. Should be doable quite easily. If you submit a task on team.ops4j.org ? You are then also free to do it on your own. I guess you already have push karma on OPS4Js GitHub account ?
Sorry for the late response, i somehow got around answering this mail in time after reading it 2 days ago :( Toni On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Kyle Miller <kyle.mil...@inventrio.com>wrote: > Hey, Everyone. > > I'm using TinyBundles in my application code to programatically create > bundles. I recently switched to TinyBundles-1.0.0 and noticed that it > has embedded the ops4j dependencies (base-io, base-lang, > base-monitors, base-store, and bndlib). This means that I can not > create my own Store object and pass in to > TinyBundles.newBundle(Store). (When I try, I get a linkage exception > if I've deployed the ops4j-base-store bundle to my osgi container or a > classDefNotFound if I have not deployed it.) > > Is this restriction intentional? > > Thank you in advance, > Kyle > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > -- Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
