[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13992573#comment-13992573
]
J.W. Janssen commented on FELIX-4330:
-
I've taken a look at the latest patch of
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4489?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Carsten Ziegeler resolved FELIX-4489.
-
Resolution: Fixed
I'Ve added some code to filter out empty values in rev 1595125
Hi,
right now we have a policy for handling provisional OSGi API (API that is
currently drafted in the OSGi expert groups but not final or officially
released yet):
http://felix.apache.org/documentation/development/provisional-osgi-api-policy.html
While the policy is good and nice, it requires
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4489?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Carsten Ziegeler reassigned FELIX-4489:
---
Assignee: Carsten Ziegeler (was: Felix Meschberger)
[Jetty] Ignore empty (string)
Well, I pretty much disagree with the existing policy being good or nice, but I
think I agree with your proposal.
I think that there should be very different policy for the svn tree and for
releases. I don't think it's a very good idea to have a release with a
provisional osgi api, whether or
+1
Tested with company's software
Thanks
--G
2014-05-12 16:01 GMT+02:00 Clement Escoffier clement.escoff...@gmail.com:
Hi,
It's time to cut a release of the iPOJO manipulator (1.12.0) and runtime
project (1.12.0). Both projects are containing several modules:
The
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4516?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Norman Fomferra updated FELIX-4516:
---
Description:
I have a deployment package containg two bundles and an image resource. All
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4516?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Norman Fomferra updated FELIX-4516:
---
Description:
I have a deployment package containg two bundles and an image resource. All
Norman Fomferra created FELIX-4516:
--
Summary: Update command fails for non-bundle resource
Key: FELIX-4516
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4516
Project: Felix
Issue Type:
There was thought that went into that policy, it wasn't just pulled out
of the air...further, from experience of working on that specs that
didn't make the cut (original OBR and Gogo), I can say the policy does a
good job of avoiding the confusion/complication created in those cases.
So,
Hello Clement;
+1
Did some basic tests with Java8.
best regards;
/Pierre
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Clement Escoffier
clement.escoff...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
It's time to cut a release of the iPOJO manipulator (1.12.0) and runtime
project (1.12.0). Both projects are containing
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4516?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Norman Fomferra updated FELIX-4516:
---
Attachment: com.acme.toolbox-1.0.4.jar
The deployment package causing the exception thrown.
+1
2014-05-16 23:24 GMT+02:00 Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org:
There was thought that went into that policy, it wasn't just pulled out of
the air...further, from experience of working on that specs that didn't
make the cut (original OBR and Gogo), I can say the policy does a good job
of
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13999655#comment-13999655
]
Carsten Ziegeler commented on FELIX-4330:
-
[~jajans] I basically agree with you.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4061?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Carsten Ziegeler resolved FELIX-4061.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Implement service endpoint registration property
You have a point about specs that don't get released. And in such a
circumstance having something released with org.osgi packages marked
provisional would be sort of a disaster.
But if a felix subproject is going to be an osgi ri, it really needs to be
developed with the right package names.
+1
Regards
JB
On 05/16/2014 11:24 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
There was thought that went into that policy, it wasn't just pulled out
of the air...further, from experience of working on that specs that
didn't make the cut (original OBR and Gogo), I can say the policy does a
good job of avoiding
On 5/16/14, 20:43 , David Jencks wrote:
You have a point about specs that don't get released. And in such a
circumstance having something released with org.osgi packages marked
provisional would be sort of a disaster.
But if a felix subproject is going to be an osgi ri, it really needs to be
18 matches
Mail list logo
