yep, this is the way to drive the spec ;) regards, Achim
2012/6/14 Harald Wellmann <[email protected]>: > Painful, yes, and even if the spec were fully implemented, some of the > pain would remain. E.g. I'd like to look up a driver by subprotocol > and not by class name. But anyway, the spec is the point of reference, > and we could always add some extensions of our own :-) > > Regards, > Harald > > 2012/6/14 Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>: >> Hey Harald, >> >> this sounds like a great Idea, especially since this is one of the >> most painful thing in OSGi right now :) >> So +1 for a Pax JDBC >> >> regards, Achim > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general -- Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
