nothing to add; +1 for the great idea! Kind regards, Andreas
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
