Harald: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: pax exam config duplication From: Harald Wellmann <[email protected]> To: General OPS4J <[email protected]> Date: Fri 28 Sep 2012 11:10:03 AM CDT > This is an FAQ, and if it were easy, I guess we'd have implemented a > solution already ;-) yes, I was afraid so :-) > You have to worry about transitive dependencies, API bundles vs. > implementation bundles (like org.osgi.core vs. > org.apache.felix.framework) and lots of other things. For every > scenario or proposal I've seen so far, it is easy to construct > counterexamples where the suggested approach would not work. why don't we focus on things that are simple and that will work - first? :-) > I'm not saying it can't be done at all, but my feeling is it would be > a lot of effort to catch all sorts of weird cases, and I don't think > it would pay off. what if pax exam can provide some kind of pluggable api for that? for experimentation? so people can add little pom-based provisioning rules jars w/o need for grandiose all-knowing solution? > Another benefit of listing provisioned bundles explicitly is working > with different configurations in different tests of the same Maven > project, which would not be possible if the configuration were derived > from the POM. yes, the benefit is great; I would think it could be addressed, again - via pom profiles? not sure.
at any rate, I would be more happy with some simple out-of the box solution that mostly works most of the time rather then having to re-build options again and again for every project the way I have to do it right now. and for complicated / weird cases I can always fall back to manual provision via options[...], right? > Best regards, > Harald thank you Andrei. > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
