2014-03-12 12:01 GMT+01:00 Chetan Mehrotra <[email protected]>:
> Couple of things to try > > * Specify the packages versions via package-info > they're already there in oak-lucene / solr , what should I do more? > * Inline the classes instead of embedding the jars > hints on how to do that? > > This would enable maven-bundle-plugin to see required > package-info.java file for versions and also the SCR generated files. > > Also can you share your project say on github. Would be easier for me > to try some options > sure: https://github.com/tteofili/jackrabbit-oak/blob/oak-1475b/oak-fulltext/pom.xml Thanks, Tommaso > Chetan Mehrotra > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Tommaso Teofili > <[email protected]> wrote: > > update on this: > > I've tried the oak-fulltext approach and I found two issues: > > 1. exported packages with semantic versioning from oak-lucene and > oak-solr > > get lost when packing everything together unless they're explicitly > > specified (by hand) in the oak-fulltext maven-bundle-plugin > configuration, > > it can be done but can be tedious (and it's error prone) > > 2. OSGi services exported by oak-lucene and oak-solr don't get exported > by > > oak-fulltext as maven-scr-plugin can look into src/main/java or classes > but > > don't know if / how it could work with embedded jars. > > > > Any suggestions? > > Regards, > > Tommaso > > > > > > > > 2014-03-11 9:00 GMT+01:00 Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]>: > > > >> if there're no other objections / comments I'll go with the last > suggested > >> approach of having oak-lucene and oak-solr not embedding anything and > >> having the oak-fulltext bundle embedding everything needed to make > Lucene > >> and Solr indexers working in OSGi (lucene-*, oak-lucene, solr-*, > >> oak-solr-*, etc.) until we (eventually) get to proper semantic > versioning > >> in Lucene / Solr. > >> > >> As a side effect I don't think it would make sense to keep > >> oak-solr-embedded and oak-solr-remote as separate artifacts so I'd merge > >> them with oak-solr-core in one oak-solr bundle. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Tommaso > >> > >> > >> 2014-03-10 18:18 GMT+01:00 Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]>: > >> > >> ah ok, thanks for clarifying. > >>> Regards, > >>> Tommaso > >>> > >>> > >>> 2014-03-10 18:10 GMT+01:00 Jukka Zitting <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Tommaso Teofili > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > ok, so (in OSGi env) we would have oak-solr and oak-fulltext as > >>>> fragments > >>>> > of oak-lucene (being the fragment host) > >>>> > >>>> No, that's not what I meant. The proposed oak-fulltext bundle would > >>>> contain all of oak-lucene, oak-solr, and the Lucene/Solr dependencies. > >>>> No need for fragment bundles in this case. > >>>> > >>>> BR, > >>>> > >>>> Jukka Zitting > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> >
